Heinlein/Race
Chris Dollin
[Re: the UK and ``libertarianism'']
The abolishment of the National Health system must have sneaked past
me as I missed that one.
Not so much ``abolished'' as ``starving to death''.
--
Regards, | "I can disappear without trace; just say the word,
Kers. | I'll be gone from this place." - Renaissance, "Electric Avenue".
Chris Croughton
drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes:
>The last part I agree with. I have no way of knowing if non-Americans
>feel his books are meaningful.
I and quite a lot of othe British fans do find them meaningful. I have
no idea how the proportions compare, but his books seem to be prominent
in bookstores (not just SF specialists), which implies that many more
people buy them than the ones who are involved in 'fandom'...
***********************************************************************
* ch...@keris.demon.co.uk * *
* chr...@cix.compulink.co.uk * FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) *
* 10001...@compuserve.com * *
***********************************************************************
Joseph Askew
>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>Explained in the book, if you notice - the USA is a dominant nation on
>>>Earth, and they want to get the popular support.
>1) The US is a dominant nation (in the book) only in the sense that it is
>one of the 'big' countries. China, The USSR (or it's equivalent) and a
>lot of other people are also 'dominant'.
Alright I'll accept that. RAH does list it first but I don't suppose
that means much. Anyway back to my original point - Independence Day
is fixed to make it the Four of July. Why?
>>Nothing from our history there.
>Have you studied your history?
Yep. Want to try me? Draw a comparison, I'll tell you where you're wrong.
>>A prevalent theme no doubt, as is assimilation and the end of
>>all other culture but American. White American at that.
>1) What is 'American culture'? There is none. It is only the mixture of
>every other culture on Earth. So is Luna. That's why you see a similarity.
This is just so untrue I hardly know where to start. The US has a unique
and distinct culture. Not one I care for much but it does have one. Nor
is it a mixture of every other culture.
>2) Read the book again and pay special attention to the references to the
>Chinese and Hindus in Hong Kong Luna. They outnumber the so-called "white
>americans" by quite a hefty margin.
There are references to Chinese in HongKong Luna. They play a minor
role I will admit. Still the Revolutuion is lead by people from what
I assume to be the American moonbase (that is, HKL is clearly Chinese,
Churchill is I assume English, NovyLeningrad is Russian, who owned theirs?)
No major charcters are Chinese. Hindus make a few passing references but
no NonEuropeans make an impact that their number might suggest. Still the
bottom line is that they do NOT outnumber the White Americans or at least
it is not claimed they do - on Luna. If you have a reference then I will
look it up.
>>It would have probably been worse when he was writing. When the
>>book was set the Professor would have grown up on the same Gringo
>>bashing that is commonplace in Latin American Intellectual life.
>My parent's grew up in the 40's and 50's, yet they somehow overcame the
>racist attitudes of those days, too. I can only assume that a man
>intelligent enough to out-think an entire planet (nearly two!) would be
>able to overcome such idiocy, too.
Dislike of the US and its government are not prejudices in that
sense. Indeed it is probably very hard to be a Latin American
intellectual without disliking the US. That is not an unreasonable
attitude but the logical consequence of their history and position.
If you don't want people to take against you you shouldn't steal
their land, overthrow their governments and invade from time to time.
It is hardly idiocy.
Joseph Askew
--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu Remote in thorny deserts, feel the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.
Joseph Askew
>>Nearly all of RAH's books require the main character to be
>>a white American. They can only make sense if that is assumed
>>at any rate. Can anyone imagine a RAH book with the hero as an
>>Islamic Fundamentalist for instance?
>As a matter of fact, Brother 'Stinky' Mahmoud from SiaSL is Islamic. You
>may argue that he is not a 'hero' but he is one of the 'first-called.'
You might notice that (a) I have mentioned SiaSL before as an exception
(b) he is not a fundamentalist (though I can't bring myself to reread it
so I might be remembering incorrectly) and the fact that he is called
"Stinky" ought to tell you something.
>>This is slightly off centre. The "secret internal directorate"
>>reflects his silly adolescent attitudes to revolution and does
>>not apply to the government system. Yes he says that the masses
>>have to be manipulated by leaders, hardly an attitude alien to
>>Washinton or Jefferson. I can easily see them sharing exactly
>>the same opinion. That was, after all, why they made America a
>>Republic.
>Well, of course. Prof. says that he modeled the 'constitution' on the one
>written by Jefferson. However, he also says that that constitution (J's)
>didn't get implemented as he wanted.
It did not get implemented as they BOTH wanted. So one of the main
characters - supposedly a Latin American - gets *all* his political
attitudes from a dead Anglo. Not a word about Bolivar or Peron or
anyone else from outside the US. Notice that the Professor did not
even update the language of the Declaration of Independence. Well,
at least the horrid "inalienable" bit anyway.
>BTW, how can you equate the opinions of Jefferson with the opinions of
>Americans in general? Jefferson was British. America didn't even exist
>at that time.
Jefferson was born in Virginia, he went to University in Virginia,
he passed through England all of once that I can think of (on his
way to France) so exactly how can you say he was British? Jefferson
represents a rather large subset of America opinion then and now. He
represents essentially a null set of nonAmericans.
>>Actually no. He does not say that *government* should step in and
>>save the Moon - he puts his faith in technology developing an answer
>>in time. There is no mentionm or even hint of government subisdy for
>>importing sewage to the moon only that if given the task engineers
>>can do anything. A Free Market solution.
>Not even close. The technology already existed for them to transport
>cheaply to Luna. The gov'ts of the world had to be convinced that that
>was the only way it was going to work.
You mean he insisted that the Government get out of the way of
private industry in developing the catapult? An entirely common
libertarian attitude. His faith is in technology developing not
in government. They did not have the catapult because of the Lunar
Authority not because the governments of the Earth had to be convinced.
>Also, notice at the end of the
>book Prof. lets Mannie in on the secret that sewage importation (is that a
>word?) was not the plan all along. The real plan was for Luna to be
>independent. See the Hawaii/laundry analogy near the end somewhere.
It was only not the plan because the Prof saw Lunar manufacturing.
They would not be farmers for ever he said.
>>>>The system they
>>>>wanted to set up is a virtual copy of the US
>You are supporting my point here. The current US is the only US!
>Jefferson's vision for America never came to fruition.
The current US is not the only US. Jefferson was President twice.
Make that comparison. Or alternatively name another country even
remotely like the system planned for the Moon.
>>I think not. However NO Hispanic could possbily comment on a
>>government system without at least a nod in the direction of
>>the South American experience. The Professor does not do so.
>I can. Prof says many times that he was fighting against 'city hall' when
>he was transported.
"City Hall"??? An Americanism confined to the US. It is not current
here or in England. And the experience of all the Latin Americans I
know is that government has to work for them. They want a MORE active
government not a less. Land Reform for instance. Again zero real
Hispanic content.
>Why would any 'groundhog' think to
>attach more importance to their own country's form of gov't than that of
>the world? Especially someone like Prof?
Attitudes are formed by history. I would have thought that any Latin
American would have had his political attitudes coloured by Civil war,
Coups, Military dictatorship, human rights violations, the total power
of the Catholic Church in the past, government corruption and the big
neighbour to the North. Nowhere does any of this make the slightest
hint of an appearance in tMiaHM. If the Professor was making plans for
restraining the military that might be something but he wasn't.
>>Again not the attitude likely to be found anywhere else.
>Point being?
He's an American who RAH decided to make a Hispanic for whatever
personal reasons RAH had at that time.
>>Again a comment from *your* experience. What has happened in, say,
>>New Zealand clearly plays no part in this.
>How about Canada? Britain? France? Japan? Pretty much every major
>gov't on Earth?
New Zealand has passed major changes in government structure (just
yesterday in fact) and have changed the Reserve Bank system, the
industrial relations system, the welfare system, education and
defense. Perhaps the biggest change they have had since Independence.
Maybe more. All by an elected Parliament. The claim that such systems
always lead to paralysis is wrong.
>Who would have overthrown the Warden in the first place? And how?
Libertarians don't mind a bit of violence. I do not know how.
>Without Mycroft's help the revolution would have failed completely. And
>only 3 people ever knew about Mike. This qualifies as a secret gov't of
>some kind in my book.
And so?
Joseph Askew
>In article <2b6p0h$n...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>How many books to you read where the fact that a
>>>character is a white American is a major plot point?
>>Nearly all of RAH's books require the main character to be
>>a white American. They can only make sense if that is assumed
>>at any rate. Can anyone imagine a RAH book with the hero as an
>>Islamic Fundamentalist for instance?
>Joe, this is the same kind of bigoted attitude that you showed in your
>original post (and yes, I do mean bigoted.)
I know I am going to regret asking but bigoted how?
>Let me point something
>out to you. White American and Islamic Fundamentalist are not
>mutually exclusive. There are a fair number of people who are White
>American Islamic Fundamentalists.
There are *some* perhaps but very few. Could you name six? To be
an IF requires attitudes it is very hard to reconcile with most
American cultural norms.
>Now, it so happens that we know
>that none of Heinlein's main characters are Islamic Fundamentalists
>(though please do not forget Stinky Mahalamud(sp?) in Stranger in a
>Strange Land) because none of his main characters have to take a time
>out 5 times a day to pray. So what is that supposed to prove?
It is worse than that because almost none of them epxress an opinion
that is not found in Middle America or hold a position that is not
in the mainstream American lexicon. Ironically perhaps his views on
Freedom and liberty come closest but they are firmly within American
traditions.
>In
>most of Heinlein's books the main character is a white American, but
>no big deal is made out of it.
Fine.
>You just kind of peripherally notice
>it or even just assume it by default. In a couple of his books - most
>notably Starship Troopers, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Podkayne
>of Mars the main character is not a white American, but no big deal is
>made out of it.
Again fine. Except I claim that these characters *are* White Americans
only he decided to change their colour for some reason unknowable at
the moment. The problem you seem to be having with my point is that I
claim it is not enough to say a perosn is Philippino for him to be so.
So RAH claimed Rico was a Philippino, if he didn't tell you how could
you tell?
>Would it really be more authentic if
>Podkayne spent most of her time railing about the injustices done to
>Maoris by white settlers 200 years beofre her birth on a totally
>different planet?
No but a few comments about the present situation would be in
character. You think that Maoris do not hold strong opinions
about the injustices of the past and present? You think that
the fact of past and present prejudice does not colour (if you
will forgive the expression) their present attitudes? If you
don't I could probably introduce you to a few.
>>And I just claim he does not. Sometimes he choose to make them
>>non-Whites but essentially they are not. In no real sense does
>>he write about nonWhites.
>Right. So? The same would apply if we eliminated all references to
>race from I Will Fear No Evil, in which most of the characters were
>white Americans. Does that mean that Heinlein doesn't write about
>white Americans after all? I don't think that your test is valid.
My test is the blind taste test. Where you wear a blindfold and
try and pick the Classic Coke. If you remove all references to
race and colour from I Will Fear No Evil and then had to guess,
on first reading, about the origins of the characters do you
think that you would have any problems in guessing White American?
>>Actually no. He does not say that *government* should step in and
>>save the Moon - he puts his faith in technology developing an answer
>>in time.
>Excuse me again. He makes it very clear that without the revolution -
>the revolution that was carried out by that secret directorate - and
>without the deliberately unreasonable stance that the Loonies take in
>their negotiations with Earth - a stance controlled by that secret
>directorate - that there isn't a hope in hell of having technology
>provide a solution in time.
They had the technology, they had it for a long time. What they
also had was a short sighted blinkered Authority which would or
could not see their best interests. It was freedom FROM government
that was the essential condition for the catapult.
>>There is no mentionm or even hint of government subisdy for
>>importing sewage to the moon only that if given the task engineers
>>can do anything. A Free Market solution.
>Wrong again. It's made very clear that the Loonies are going to
>refuse to ship organics to Earth unless they get organics back ton for
>ton.
Is it? It is made clear they *want* organics ton for ton.
>It is also made clear that the wheat farmers are quite willing
>to ship wheat to earth without getting organics back in exchange. It
>is clear that the Loony Government is stepping in and saying "Thou
>shalt not ship organics downhill unless they send an equal amount back
>uphill."
Is it? Where might that be?
>I will agree that there is no mention of government subsidies for
>importing sewage to the moon, but given the policy described above, I
>hardly see why one would be needed.
Because if it was not cost effective someone would have had to pay.
>No, but he also doesn't comment on the US experience (except for his
>reference to the Declaration of Independence, but that's been copied
>so often that it's almost a tradition).
Copied by who else? Only by Americans as far as I remember. From Locke.
By Jefferson. Still the Professors entire world view is based on the
ideas and philosophies of Jefferson et al. The whoel book is a comment
on the US experience.
>So are you claiming that an
>authentic Hispanic has to give "at least a nod in the direction of
>the South American experience" but that an authentic American doesn't
>have to give at least a nod in the direction of the US experience?
An authentic American could not help but give a nod in the direction
of the US experience. It is part of what makes us what we are. RAH
gives a little more than a nod though.
>Do
>you really think that the copying of the US Declaration of
>Independence is that ever so important nod that would not have been
>there if de la Paz was authentically Hispanic?
I think a Hispanic would not have copied the Declaration of
Independence, no. He might have written a new one based on it
but only an American would carry such idolisation so far as to
copy it in its entirety.
>Do you disagree with my point in the paragraph above?
Yes
>Do you admit that Heinlein makes it clear that a truly Libertarian
>Luna would have been crushed by the FN?
No.
>In that case, how can TMIAHM be promoting Libertarianism?
How can you see it otherwise?
David Rysdam
>In article <drysda02.752453599@ursa> drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes:
>>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>>Explained in the book, if you notice - the USA is a dominant nation on
>>>>Earth, and they want to get the popular support.
>>1) The US is a dominant nation (in the book) only in the sense that it is
>>one of the 'big' countries. China, The USSR (or it's equivalent) and a
>>lot of other people are also 'dominant'.
>Alright I'll accept that. RAH does list it first but I don't suppose
>that means much. Anyway back to my original point - Independence Day
>is fixed to make it the Four of July. Why?
I'm not sure. You probably have a point on this one...
>>>Nothing from our history there.
>>Have you studied your history?
>Yep. Want to try me? Draw a comparison, I'll tell you where you're wrong.
Penal colony.
>>>A prevalent theme no doubt, as is assimilation and the end of
>>>all other culture but American. White American at that.
>>1) What is 'American culture'? There is none. It is only the mixture of
>>every other culture on Earth. So is Luna. That's why you see a similarity.
>This is just so untrue I hardly know where to start. The US has a unique
>and distinct culture. Not one I care for much but it does have one. Nor
>is it a mixture of every other culture.
Ok, so I went a little overboard on that claim. But it is true that
America is fairly unique (if that is not an oxymoron) in the fact that it
has many 'representatives' from nearly every other culture on earth.
>>2) Read the book again and pay special attention to the references to the
>>Chinese and Hindus in Hong Kong Luna. They outnumber the so-called "white
>>americans" by quite a hefty margin.
>There are references to Chinese in HongKong Luna. They play a minor
>role I will admit. Still the Revolutuion is lead by people from what
>I assume to be the American moonbase (that is, HKL is clearly Chinese,
>Churchill is I assume English, NovyLeningrad is Russian, who owned theirs?)
>No major charcters are Chinese. Hindus make a few passing references but
>no NonEuropeans make an impact that their number might suggest. Still the
>bottom line is that they do NOT outnumber the White Americans or at least
>it is not claimed they do - on Luna. If you have a reference then I will
>look it up.
Manuel O'Kelly Davis. He is non-white and not even from Earth. There is
little about him that is American (solely). True there are no Chinese
'major characters' but is at least one Chinese highly influential
character. The guy who hocked all he had in order to partially finance
the revolution.
>>My parent's grew up in the 40's and 50's, yet they somehow overcame the
>>racist attitudes of those days, too. I can only assume that a man
>>intelligent enough to out-think an entire planet (nearly two!) would be
>>able to overcome such idiocy, too.
>Dislike of the US and its government are not prejudices in that
>sense. Indeed it is probably very hard to be a Latin American
>intellectual without disliking the US. That is not an unreasonable
>attitude but the logical consequence of their history and position.
>If you don't want people to take against you you shouldn't steal
>their land, overthrow their governments and invade from time to time.
>It is hardly idiocy.
Aha! But Prof didn't experience that gov't overthrowing-land stealing
business. He lived in a time when the FN ruled the planet. Hating the US
then, would be like me hating Brits because of the Stamp Tax.
David Rysdam
>In article <drysda02.752288983@ursa> drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes:
>>>Nearly all of RAH's books require the main character to be
>>>a white American. They can only make sense if that is assumed
>>>at any rate. Can anyone imagine a RAH book with the hero as an
>>>Islamic Fundamentalist for instance?
>>As a matter of fact, Brother 'Stinky' Mahmoud from SiaSL is Islamic. You
>>may argue that he is not a 'hero' but he is one of the 'first-called.'
>You might notice that (a) I have mentioned SiaSL before as an exception
>(b) he is not a fundamentalist (though I can't bring myself to reread it
>so I might be remembering incorrectly) and the fact that he is called
>"Stinky" ought to tell you something.
He is not fundamentalist but sure is serious about it. What should
'Stinky' tell me?
>>>This is slightly off centre. The "secret internal directorate"
>>>reflects his silly adolescent attitudes to revolution and does
>>>not apply to the government system. Yes he says that the masses
>>>have to be manipulated by leaders, hardly an attitude alien to
>>>Washinton or Jefferson. I can easily see them sharing exactly
>>>the same opinion. That was, after all, why they made America a
>>>Republic.
>>Well, of course. Prof. says that he modeled the 'constitution' on the one
>>written by Jefferson. However, he also says that that constitution (J's)
>>didn't get implemented as he wanted.
>It did not get implemented as they BOTH wanted. So one of the main
>characters - supposedly a Latin American - gets *all* his political
>attitudes from a dead Anglo. Not a word about Bolivar or Peron or
>anyone else from outside the US. Notice that the Professor did not
>even update the language of the Declaration of Independence. Well,
>at least the horrid "inalienable" bit anyway.
No, Prof did not get his political attitude from a 'dead Anglo'. He had a
political alignment (Rational Anarchy). He wanted to implement this
alignment into the government he was setting up. He (being educated) had
read "Jefferson's" D of I. He realized that America had _got_it_wrong_.
He attempted to push through his own interpretation of this document
because it said what he wanted to say, and he hoped no one would realize
what it really _did_ say until it was too late.
>>BTW, how can you equate the opinions of Jefferson with the opinions of
>>Americans in general? Jefferson was British. America didn't even exist
>>at that time.
>Jefferson was born in Virginia, he went to University in Virginia,
>he passed through England all of once that I can think of (on his
>way to France) so exactly how can you say he was British? Jefferson
>represents a rather large subset of America opinion then and now. He
>represents essentially a null set of nonAmericans.
Because he was born in a British colony. If you can claim that Prof's
being born in a Hispanic country gives him a full-fledged and immutable
opinion of the US then I can claim that Jefferson being born in a
(essentially) British country (at the time) gives him the same thing.
>>>Actually no. He does not say that *government* should step in and
>>>save the Moon - he puts his faith in technology developing an answer
>>>in time. There is no mentionm or even hint of government subisdy for
>>>importing sewage to the moon only that if given the task engineers
>>>can do anything. A Free Market solution.
>>Not even close. The technology already existed for them to transport
>>cheaply to Luna. The gov'ts of the world had to be convinced that that
>>was the only way it was going to work.
>You mean he insisted that the Government get out of the way of
>private industry in developing the catapult? An entirely common
>libertarian attitude. His faith is in technology developing not
>in government. They did not have the catapult because of the Lunar
>Authority not because the governments of the Earth had to be convinced.
Wrong again. He had no concern whatsoever about private industry.
Correct me if I'm wrong here (and I'm not expecting a correction :-) but
Luna was free in the end and Lunar Authority was never defeated. They won
because China (not the US, btw) decided it would be in their interest to
support Luna. They were quickly followed by a flurry of other gov'ts.
>>Also, notice at the end of the
>>book Prof. lets Mannie in on the secret that sewage importation (is that a
>>word?) was not the plan all along. The real plan was for Luna to be
>>independent. See the Hawaii/laundry analogy near the end somewhere.
>It was only not the plan because the Prof saw Lunar manufacturing.
>They would not be farmers for ever he said.
I forget what the point was here, but, FYI, Prof say Luna as a free port
(something else quite unAmerican).
>>>>>The system they
>>>>>wanted to set up is a virtual copy of the US
>>You are supporting my point here. The current US is the only US!
>>Jefferson's vision for America never came to fruition.
>The current US is not the only US. Jefferson was President twice.
>Make that comparison. Or alternatively name another country even
>remotely like the system planned for the Moon.
Nixon was almost president twice, too. That doesn't mean that I'm a
criminal. Why do I need to name another country with Luna's gov't? It
needn't be like _any_ gov't.
>>>I think not. However NO Hispanic could possbily comment on a
>>>government system without at least a nod in the direction of
>>>the South American experience. The Professor does not do so.
>>I can. Prof says many times that he was fighting against 'city hall' when
>>he was transported.
>"City Hall"??? An Americanism confined to the US. It is not current
>here or in England. And the experience of all the Latin Americans I
>know is that government has to work for them. They want a MORE active
>government not a less. Land Reform for instance. Again zero real
>Hispanic content.
1) Hispanic people (or any people for that matter) do not come from a
xerox copy machine. Just because a man is raised in a country and is
politically active doesn't mean he agrees with anybody else on the issues.
Note the presence of neo-nazis in America (and around the world).
2) 'Fighting against city hall', is an American expression. But what
other succinct way is there of saying the same thing in an acceptable way?
After all, _I_ say things like "Adios, amigo" but I am not 'essentially'
Hispanic.
>>Why would any 'groundhog' think to
>>attach more importance to their own country's form of gov't than that of
>>the world? Especially someone like Prof?
>Attitudes are formed by history. I would have thought that any Latin
>American would have had his political attitudes coloured by Civil war,
>Coups, Military dictatorship, human rights violations, the total power
>of the Catholic Church in the past, government corruption and the big
>neighbour to the North. Nowhere does any of this make the slightest
>hint of an appearance in tMiaHM. If the Professor was making plans for
>restraining the military that might be something but he wasn't.
None of that stuff appears because the novel is about the Moon, not about
Central or South America. Furthermore, Prof. _is_ making plans to
'restrain the military'. He doesn't even create one!
>>>Again not the attitude likely to be found anywhere else.
>>Point being?
>He's an American who RAH decided to make a Hispanic for whatever
>personal reasons RAH had at that time.
Quite the racist attitude. By that argument, I could claim that _you_ are
essentially a White American.
>>>Again a comment from *your* experience. What has happened in, say,
>>>New Zealand clearly plays no part in this.
>>How about Canada? Britain? France? Japan? Pretty much every major
>>gov't on Earth?
>New Zealand has passed major changes in government structure (just
>yesterday in fact) and have changed the Reserve Bank system, the
>industrial relations system, the welfare system, education and
>defense. Perhaps the biggest change they have had since Independence.
>Maybe more. All by an elected Parliament. The claim that such systems
>always lead to paralysis is wrong.
I didn't claim that they always do. What I am claiming is that the
Parlimant structure is a common one, and not solely attributable to America.
>>Who would have overthrown the Warden in the first place? And how?
>>Without Mycroft's help the revolution would have failed completely. And
>>only 3 people ever knew about Mike. This qualifies as a secret gov't of
>>some kind in my book.
>And so?
Again, I don't remember the point this was making, either, since the
preceding stuff has been erased.
>Joseph Askew
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem,
pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently,
die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
(drys...@calvin.edu can do 18 of these 21, how about you?)
Michael Friedman
>In article <drysda02.752453599@ursa> drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes:
>>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>>Explained in the book, if you notice - the USA is a dominant nation on
>>>>Earth, and they want to get the popular support.
>>1) The US is a dominant nation (in the book) only in the sense that it is
>>one of the 'big' countries. China, The USSR (or it's equivalent) and a
>>lot of other people are also 'dominant'.
Actually, this isn't true. The US is clearly one of the most
important countries, and there is even a possibility (albeit low) that
the right sequence of events in the Loony rebellion could prompt them
to tell the FN to go to hell.
>Alright I'll accept that. RAH does list it first but I don't suppose
>that means much. Anyway back to my original point - Independence Day
>is fixed to make it the Four of July. Why?
Read the book. Heinlein says why explicitly - to influence US public
opinion.
>>>Nothing from our history there.
>>Have you studied your history?
>Yep. Want to try me? Draw a comparison, I'll tell you where you're wrong.
Penal colony?
>>>A prevalent theme no doubt, as is assimilation and the end of
>>>all other culture but American. White American at that.
>>1) What is 'American culture'? There is none. It is only the mixture of
>>every other culture on Earth. So is Luna. That's why you see a similarity.
>This is just so untrue I hardly know where to start. The US has a unique
>and distinct culture. Not one I care for much but it does have one. Nor
>is it a mixture of every other culture.
I don't think you know the US nearly as well as you think you do.
Could you please describe this culture for us?
>>2) Read the book again and pay special attention to the references to the
>>Chinese and Hindus in Hong Kong Luna. They outnumber the so-called "white
>>americans" by quite a hefty margin.
>There are references to Chinese in HongKong Luna. They play a minor
>role I will admit. Still the Revolutuion is lead by people from what
>I assume to be the American moonbase (that is, HKL is clearly Chinese,
>Churchill is I assume English, NovyLeningrad is Russian, who owned
>theirs?)
Wrong again. Luna City pretty clearly isn't owned by any nation. If
anyone owns it, it's the FN.
>No major charcters are Chinese. Hindus make a few passing references but
>no NonEuropeans make an impact that their number might suggest.
Please make up your mind. First you claim that everyone in charge is
an American. Then you claim that none of them are non-Europeans.
Make up your mind!!
Also, how do you classify Manny? His skin is clearly pretty dark.
Professor Bernardo de La Paz is also pretty clearly South American,
not European.
>Still the
>bottom line is that they do NOT outnumber the White Americans or at least
>it is not claimed they do - on Luna. If you have a reference then I will
>look it up.
Can you please tell us where you get the idea that white Americans
outnumber everyone else? The book makes it very clear that every
country on Earth has been using Luna as a dumping ground for people
they don't want. It seems pretty bizarre to assume that the majority
are from the US without evidence.
>Dislike of the US and its government are not prejudices in that
>sense. Indeed it is probably very hard to be a Latin American
>intellectual without disliking the US. That is not an unreasonable
>attitude but the logical consequence of their history and position.
>If you don't want people to take against you you shouldn't steal
>their land, overthrow their governments and invade from time to time.
>It is hardly idiocy.
Joseph, I don't think you know Latin America as well as you think you
do, either. Let me point out that, although there are exceptions, the
US has not invaded or overthrown governments in most of Latin America.
Joseph Askew
>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>>Nothing from our history there.
>>>Have you studied your history?
>>Yep. Want to try me? Draw a comparison, I'll tell you where you're wrong.
>Penal colony.
Ahh but wrong sort and wrong governmental system. It is true that
convicts in tMiaHM had to work at least for a time but we weren't
quite such a dumping ground for riff raff. Unlike the US was in
the old days. There are no control mechanisms so exactly how they
could make all those convicts work I don't know - I guess many of
them were just let go once they go there. Not like it used to be
for us! No convicts were leased out, there were no special sites
for "discipline" a la Port Arthur, Norfolk Island. I think the
penal part has more in common with American history as a criminal
dump site than with ours.
>>There are references to Chinese in HongKong Luna. They play a minor
>>role I will admit. Still the Revolutuion is lead by people from what
>>I assume to be the American moonbase (that is, HKL is clearly Chinese,
>>Churchill is I assume English, NovyLeningrad is Russian, who owned theirs?)
>>No major charcters are Chinese. Hindus make a few passing references but
>>no NonEuropeans make an impact that their number might suggest. Still the
>>bottom line is that they do NOT outnumber the White Americans or at least
>>it is not claimed they do - on Luna. If you have a reference then I will
>>look it up.
>Manuel O'Kelly Davis. He is non-white and not even from Earth.
Yep I deserved that. Silly me. Still he is only part nonWhite
and we don't even know which part. Besides he likes baseball.
Must be an American.
>There is
>little about him that is American (solely).
No? In his attitude to almost everything? Are you quite
sure about this one? He is not exactly Japanese is he?
Nor even English, he ain't a Bengali either. Exactly
what do you think he was?
>True there are no Chinese
>'major characters' but is at least one Chinese highly influential
>character. The guy who hocked all he had in order to partially finance
>the revolution.
Some guy in the background we never meet. It would have been more
interesting to have the Chinese support the existing order as they
almost certainly would. They have long memories of civil wars and
rebellions, some even support governments that openly discriminate
against them (cf Malaysia, Indonesia)
>Aha! But Prof didn't experience that gov't overthrowing-land stealing
>business. He lived in a time when the FN ruled the planet. Hating the US
>then, would be like me hating Brits because of the Stamp Tax.
That depends how many Americans were killed by the Stamp Act (and
the US has a long long history of involvement in Latin America
and still retains vast amounts of what used to be Latin American.)
Do you think the Russians would have forgiven the Germans by then?
Or the Irish the English?
Joseph Askew
>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>In article <drysda02.752288983@ursa> drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes:
>>>As a matter of fact, Brother 'Stinky' Mahmoud from SiaSL is Islamic. You
>>>may argue that he is not a 'hero' but he is one of the 'first-called.'
>>You might notice that (a) I have mentioned SiaSL before as an exception
>>(b) he is not a fundamentalist (though I can't bring myself to reread it
>>so I might be remembering incorrectly) and the fact that he is called
>>"Stinky" ought to tell you something.
>He is not fundamentalist but sure is serious about it. What should
>'Stinky' tell me?
Met many Iranians called "Stinky" lately? Many Pakistanis perhaps?
Surely this is an American nickname?
>>It did not get implemented as they BOTH wanted. So one of the main
>>characters - supposedly a Latin American - gets *all* his political
>>attitudes from a dead Anglo. Not a word about Bolivar or Peron or
>>anyone else from outside the US. Notice that the Professor did not
>>even update the language of the Declaration of Independence. Well,
>>at least the horrid "inalienable" bit anyway.
>No, Prof did not get his political attitude from a 'dead Anglo'. He had a
>political alignment (Rational Anarchy).
Who does he say the first Rational Anarchist was?
>He wanted to implement this
>alignment into the government he was setting up.
True.
>He (being educated) had
>read "Jefferson's" D of I.
Bzzzt. I like to consider myself educated. Like to ask
me if I've read the DofI? I might have read Locke from
whom it was cribbed but then I am probably overeducated.
>He attempted to push through his own interpretation of this document
>because it said what he wanted to say, and he hoped no one would realize
>what it really _did_ say until it was too late.
Exactly what he said happened to TJ.
>>Jefferson was born in Virginia, he went to University in Virginia,
>>he passed through England all of once that I can think of (on his
>>way to France) so exactly how can you say he was British? Jefferson
>>represents a rather large subset of America opinion then and now. He
>>represents essentially a null set of nonAmericans.
>Because he was born in a British colony.
It's nice to know I'm British.
>>You mean he insisted that the Government get out of the way of
>>private industry in developing the catapult? An entirely common
>>libertarian attitude. His faith is in technology developing not
>>in government. They did not have the catapult because of the Lunar
>>Authority not because the governments of the Earth had to be convinced.
>Wrong again. He had no concern whatsoever about private industry.
Except of course they were the ones who built the catapult.
>Correct me if I'm wrong here (and I'm not expecting a correction :-) but
>Luna was free in the end and Lunar Authority was never defeated. They won
>because China (not the US, btw) decided it would be in their interest to
>support Luna. They were quickly followed by a flurry of other gov'ts.
Luna was free because the Authority was defeated. China did recognise
their Independence hence dealing a blow to the FN's plans. Veto powers
and all that.
>>It was only not the plan because the Prof saw Lunar manufacturing.
>>They would not be farmers for ever he said.
>I forget what the point was here, but, FYI, Prof say Luna as a free port
>(something else quite unAmerican).
Is it? Surely straight out of Libertarian economic thinking. And
what was that bit about entangling alliances? Surely he's quoting
Washington now?
>>"City Hall"??? An Americanism confined to the US. It is not current
>>here or in England. And the experience of all the Latin Americans I
>>know is that government has to work for them. They want a MORE active
>>government not a less. Land Reform for instance. Again zero real
>>Hispanic content.
>1) Hispanic people (or any people for that matter) do not come from a
>xerox copy machine.
This is true. However they do have a common history more or less
which forms common(ish) attitudes to various issues. At least that
history provides a unique framework within which political debate
is largely confined. Quoting Jfferson Davis will not work in Africa
nor in most of the US but in certain parts of the US quoting Davis
might win you an argument "Jefferson Davis said...". Try quoting
what the Third Iman said about alcohol in the US and in Iran. Then
you will see the impact of history on politics.
>Just because a man is raised in a country and is
>politically active doesn't mean he agrees with anybody else on the issues.
This is also true. But on what basis besides RAH word do you assume
the Professor *was* raised in this particular country?
>2) 'Fighting against city hall', is an American expression. But what
>other succinct way is there of saying the same thing in an acceptable way?
In this country you have to think of an alternative as it would
take people a minute to think of what you mean. Of course on the
Moon, when Latinos speak to Lunatics.....
>>Attitudes are formed by history. I would have thought that any Latin
>>American would have had his political attitudes coloured by Civil war,
>>Coups, Military dictatorship, human rights violations, the total power
>>of the Catholic Church in the past, government corruption and the big
>>neighbour to the North. Nowhere does any of this make the slightest
>>hint of an appearance in tMiaHM. If the Professor was making plans for
>>restraining the military that might be something but he wasn't.
>None of that stuff appears because the novel is about the Moon, not about
>Central or South America. Furthermore, Prof. _is_ making plans to
>'restrain the military'. He doesn't even create one!
Ahh but stuff about Virginian politics in the late eighteenth
century does. How is that more relevant? He does sort of create
a military. He puts MO'KD in charge for a while. All these issues
are universal questions of political relevance. Only in the US and
a few other lucky countries are these irrelevant. Do you really
think a Latino would not even think about a Coup? Or corruption?
Or suspension of the Constitution? Military dictatorship? Not a
mention once? At all?
>>>>Again not the attitude likely to be found anywhere else.
>>>Point being?
>>He's an American who RAH decided to make a Hispanic for whatever
>>personal reasons RAH had at that time.
>Quite the racist attitude.
Really? How so?
>By that argument, I could claim that _you_ are
>essentially a White American.
No doubt you could. However if we discussed *any* issue
for long you would quickly realise I am not. Try baseball.
Joseph Askew
>In article <2bjv9p$m...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>Alright I'll accept that. RAH does list it first but I don't suppose
>>that means much. Anyway back to my original point - Independence Day
>>is fixed to make it the Four of July. Why?
>Read the book. Heinlein says why explicitly - to influence US public
>opinion.
No he does not. He says, later, it did, but not that it was the
reason behind the choice of date. Do you have a reference otherwise?
>>>>Nothing from our history there.
>>>Have you studied your history?
>>Yep. Want to try me? Draw a comparison, I'll tell you where you're wrong.
>Penal colony?
Nothing like the Moon. This I believe was drawn from US history
not ours. We had a very different system.
>>This is just so untrue I hardly know where to start. The US has a unique
>>and distinct culture. Not one I care for much but it does have one. Nor
>>is it a mixture of every other culture.
>I don't think you know the US nearly as well as you think you do.
>Could you please describe this culture for us?
Not very well I couldn't. I shall not try. I would claim that
libertarianism is uniquely American both as a political ideology
and on a lower scale as a attitude to government but that would
be asking for trouble. The US *does* have a culture - that is why
the French want films exempted from GATT and I trust them to know
culture when they see it :-)
>>>2) Read the book again and pay special attention to the references to the
>>>Chinese and Hindus in Hong Kong Luna. They outnumber the so-called "white
>>>americans" by quite a hefty margin.
>>There are references to Chinese in HongKong Luna. They play a minor
>>role I will admit. Still the Revolutuion is lead by people from what
>>I assume to be the American moonbase (that is, HKL is clearly Chinese,
>>Churchill is I assume English, NovyLeningrad is Russian, who owned
>>theirs?)
>Wrong again. Luna City pretty clearly isn't owned by any nation. If
>anyone owns it, it's the FN.
O.K. Poor choice of words. However all the cities were fairly
clearly founded by one nation or the other. Luna City was the
one that the US founded (by inference at least)
>>No major charcters are Chinese. Hindus make a few passing references but
>>no NonEuropeans make an impact that their number might suggest.
>Please make up your mind. First you claim that everyone in charge is
>an American. Then you claim that none of them are non-Europeans.
Welcome to the wonderful world of racial euphemism.
>Also, how do you classify Manny? His skin is clearly pretty dark.
Is it? Says who? His classification is exactly the problem. For
his own reasons RAH decided to give him a mixed racial background.
Why I can't say - perhaps he wanted to make a racial harmony point.
However if you ignore the bits that tell you his background I think
you could not infer it. Indeed the assumptino would be that he was
a White American Middle Class male.
>Professor Bernardo de La Paz is also pretty clearly South American,
>not European.
Is he? How so? His manners are exactly European in an old fashioned
sort of way.
>>Still the
>>bottom line is that they do NOT outnumber the White Americans or at least
>>it is not claimed they do - on Luna. If you have a reference then I will
>>look it up.
>Can you please tell us where you get the idea that white Americans
>outnumber everyone else?
Actually I don't get that idea myself. It was the opposite of the
claim of the previous poster. He claimed they did. From the book
I fail to see how you can get that impression.
>It seems pretty bizarre to assume that the majority
>are from the US without evidence.
Let's list all the people mentioned then shall we?
>Joseph, I don't think you know Latin America as well as you think you
>do, either. Let me point out that, although there are exceptions, the
>US has not invaded or overthrown governments in most of Latin America.
Well lets see Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua (occupied it
for 20 odd years), Panama, Colombia, Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic,
I'll ignore Chile because I suppose you only helped them to do it
themselves, Argentinia no, Brazil no, Costa Rica not that I know
of but I would be suprised if you didn't (I'll count that as a no),
Venezuela? I think so but I cannot remember when - no again. El
Salvador yep occupied in the twenties I believe. That's ten by my
count. How many have I missed? Some of these are multiple or long
term occupations too. I call that most. How about you? (I can't
think of Ecuador or Peru or Bolivia or Paraguay or Uraguay at the
moment but I'll find out if anyone is interested)
Sigurd Meldal
> >Aha! But Prof didn't experience that gov't overthrowing-land stealing
> >business. He lived in a time when the FN ruled the planet. Hating the US
> >then, would be like me hating Brits because of the Stamp Tax.
in article <2bkh45$b...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>,
jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote
> That depends how many Americans were killed by the Stamp Act (and
> the US has a long long history of involvement in Latin America
> and still retains vast amounts of what used to be Latin American.)
> Do you think the Russians would have forgiven the Germans by then?
> Or the Irish the English?
Isn't history fun: The British have a long history of meddling in US
politics and economy, and
(fear of) their political influence was one of the major factors in
precipitating the US Civil War. They are
owners of vast parts of the US economy, and still (or until very recently)
the foreign nation with
the largest investment in the US.
How many US'ians rant and rave about the British presence (or even give
them a nod)?
Sigurd
(Can you tell the color of my hair from the contents of my writing?)
___________________________________________________________________________
Department of Informatics, University of Bergen, HiB, N-5020 Bergen, Norway
Email: sig...@ii.uib.no Ph.:+47 5 54 41 76 Fax.: +47 5 54 41 99
David Rysdam
>In article <drysda02.752726922@ursa> drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes:
>>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>>>Nothing from our history there.
>>>>Have you studied your history?
>>>Yep. Want to try me? Draw a comparison, I'll tell you where you're wrong.
>>Penal colony.
>Ahh but wrong sort and wrong governmental system. It is true that
>convicts in tMiaHM had to work at least for a time but we weren't
>quite such a dumping ground for riff raff. Unlike the US was in
>the old days. There are no control mechanisms so exactly how they
>could make all those convicts work I don't know - I guess many of
>them were just let go once they go there. Not like it used to be
>for us! No convicts were leased out, there were no special sites
>for "discipline" a la Port Arthur, Norfolk Island. I think the
>penal part has more in common with American history as a criminal
>dump site than with ours.
Is Luna A Dumping Ground?: Yes, but the "riff-raff" dies within months if
not days.
Control Mechanism: Work or die of starvation.
Discipline Sites: No farther than the nearest airlock.
The Penal Parts, American History and Australia Connection:
A) The early Americans were not wanted in their own country, true. But
they came to the US of _their_own_free_will_. Early Australians did not.
B) For the convicts involved (if any in the case of the US) it would be
much, much easier to get to England from the US than from Australia. It
would about as difficult to get from Au to En as from Luna to Earth.
>>>There are references to Chinese in HongKong Luna. They play a minor
>>>role I will admit. Still the Revolutuion is lead by people from what
>>>I assume to be the American moonbase (that is, HKL is clearly Chinese,
>>>Churchill is I assume English, NovyLeningrad is Russian, who owned theirs?)
>>>No major charcters are Chinese. Hindus make a few passing references but
>>>no NonEuropeans make an impact that their number might suggest. Still the
>>>bottom line is that they do NOT outnumber the White Americans or at least
>>>it is not claimed they do - on Luna. If you have a reference then I will
>>>look it up.
>>Manuel O'Kelly Davis. He is non-white and not even from Earth.
>Yep I deserved that. Silly me. Still he is only part nonWhite
>and we don't even know which part. Besides he likes baseball.
>Must be an American.
I hope you are joking. The Japanese love baseball just as much (if not
more) than Americans. Besides, I am an American: Do I love baseball?
No.
Also, what does part nonWhite mean? The question is not "to what extent
are the character white" the question is "are their any nonwhite
characters" By your own admition Mannie is.
>>There is
>>little about him that is American (solely).
>No? In his attitude to almost everything? Are you quite
>sure about this one? He is not exactly Japanese is he?
>Nor even English, he ain't a Bengali either. Exactly
>what do you think he was?
Loonie.
>>True there are no Chinese
>>'major characters' but is at least one Chinese highly influential
>>character. The guy who hocked all he had in order to partially finance
>>the revolution.
>Some guy in the background we never meet. It would have been more
>interesting to have the Chinese support the existing order as they
>almost certainly would. They have long memories of civil wars and
>rebellions, some even support governments that openly discriminate
>against them (cf Malaysia, Indonesia)
Of course, I forgot. Culture = Race. If a man's eyes have epicanthic
folds he must have a long memory of civil wars and rebellions.
>>Aha! But Prof didn't experience that gov't overthrowing-land stealing
>>business. He lived in a time when the FN ruled the planet. Hating the US
>>then, would be like me hating Brits because of the Stamp Tax.
>That depends how many Americans were killed by the Stamp Act (and
>the US has a long long history of involvement in Latin America
>and still retains vast amounts of what used to be Latin American.)
>Do you think the Russians would have forgiven the Germans by then?
>Or the Irish the English?
Hate = Number of People Killed / Length of Time Since?
David Rysdam
>In article <drysda02.752727988@ursa> drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes:
>>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>In article <drysda02.752288983@ursa> drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes:
>>He is not fundamentalist but sure is serious about it. What should
>>'Stinky' tell me?
>Met many Iranians called "Stinky" lately? Many Pakistanis perhaps?
>Surely this is an American nickname?
Yes, it is. But I could call you "Stinky" and you would still not be
American, so what is your point?
>>No, Prof did not get his political attitude from a 'dead Anglo'. He had a
>>political alignment (Rational Anarchy).
>Who does he say the first Rational Anarchist was?
Who was the first Christian? Am I a Hebrew?
>>He wanted to implement this
>>alignment into the government he was setting up.
>True.
>>He (being educated) had
>>read "Jefferson's" D of I.
>Bzzzt. I like to consider myself educated. Like to ask
>me if I've read the DofI? I might have read Locke from
>whom it was cribbed but then I am probably overeducated.
Then stop considering yourself fully educated on this subject. How can
you discuss Jefferson without having read him?
>>He attempted to push through his own interpretation of this document
>>because it said what he wanted to say, and he hoped no one would realize
>>what it really _did_ say until it was too late.
>Exactly what he said happened to TJ.
So?
>>>Jefferson was born in Virginia, he went to University in Virginia,
>>>he passed through England all of once that I can think of (on his
>>>way to France) so exactly how can you say he was British? Jefferson
>>>represents a rather large subset of America opinion then and now. He
>>>represents essentially a null set of nonAmericans.
>>Because he was born in a British colony.
>It's nice to know I'm British.
You erased the rest of that paragraph for the convenience of your
argument. That is not polite or intelligent. Please stop it. Also,
respond to what you erased or give up your argument as a lost cause.
Note: This is not the first time you have done this. I have mentioned
Friday repeatedly but have never heard from you on this subject.
>>>You mean he insisted that the Government get out of the way of
>>>private industry in developing the catapult? An entirely common
>>>libertarian attitude. His faith is in technology developing not
>>>in government. They did not have the catapult because of the Lunar
>>>Authority not because the governments of the Earth had to be convinced.
>>Wrong again. He had no concern whatsoever about private industry.
>Except of course they were the ones who built the catapult.
Which was intended only to throw rocks. No trade going on there.
>>Correct me if I'm wrong here (and I'm not expecting a correction :-) but
>>Luna was free in the end and Lunar Authority was never defeated. They won
>>because China (not the US, btw) decided it would be in their interest to
>>support Luna. They were quickly followed by a flurry of other gov'ts.
>Luna was free because the Authority was defeated. China did recognise
>their Independence hence dealing a blow to the FN's plans. Veto powers
>and all that.
The FN never got a chance to decide the matter. Read the book more
closely and you will learn that the first group that Mannie and Prof
talked to were the "tame dogs" of Authority, not of the FN. The FN had to
be convinced that it was in their best interest to step in on what they
originally saw as in-fighting in Authority. (note that Authority was a
business that the gov't was interfering with--again not Libertarian.)
>>>It was only not the plan because the Prof saw Lunar manufacturing.
>>>They would not be farmers for ever he said.
>>I forget what the point was here, but, FYI, Prof say Luna as a free port
>>(something else quite unAmerican).
>Is it? Surely straight out of Libertarian economic thinking. And
>what was that bit about entangling alliances? Surely he's quoting
>Washington now?
Libertarian = American?
>>>"City Hall"??? An Americanism confined to the US. It is not current
>>>here or in England. And the experience of all the Latin Americans I
>>>know is that government has to work for them. They want a MORE active
>>>government not a less. Land Reform for instance. Again zero real
>>>Hispanic content.
>>1) Hispanic people (or any people for that matter) do not come from a
>>xerox copy machine.
>This is true. However they do have a common history more or less
>which forms common(ish) attitudes to various issues. At least that
>history provides a unique framework within which political debate
>is largely confined. Quoting Jfferson Davis will not work in Africa
>nor in most of the US but in certain parts of the US quoting Davis
>might win you an argument "Jefferson Davis said...". Try quoting
>what the Third Iman said about alcohol in the US and in Iran. Then
>you will see the impact of history on politics.
You aren't talking about impact, though. You are talking about some kind
of indoctrination.
>>Just because a man is raised in a country and is
>>politically active doesn't mean he agrees with anybody else on the issues.
>This is also true. But on what basis besides RAH word do you assume
>the Professor *was* raised in this particular country?
You do realize that any "basis" I come up with will still be RAH's word,
don't you?
>>2) 'Fighting against city hall', is an American expression. But what
>>other succinct way is there of saying the same thing in an acceptable way?
>In this country you have to think of an alternative as it would
>take people a minute to think of what you mean. Of course on the
>Moon, when Latinos speak to Lunatics.....
And when that dialogue is written in English by an American, for the
consumption of Americans.....
>>>Attitudes are formed by history. I would have thought that any Latin
>>>American would have had his political attitudes coloured by Civil war,
>>>Coups, Military dictatorship, human rights violations, the total power
>>>of the Catholic Church in the past, government corruption and the big
>>>neighbour to the North. Nowhere does any of this make the slightest
>>>hint of an appearance in tMiaHM. If the Professor was making plans for
>>>restraining the military that might be something but he wasn't.
>>None of that stuff appears because the novel is about the Moon, not about
>>Central or South America. Furthermore, Prof. _is_ making plans to
>>'restrain the military'. He doesn't even create one!
>Ahh but stuff about Virginian politics in the late eighteenth
>century does.
So? Is Prof. so closeminded that he sees no good in the works of the past
in another context?
>How is that more relevant? He does sort of create
>a military. He puts MO'KD in charge for a while. All these issues
>are universal questions of political relevance. Only in the US and
>a few other lucky countries are these irrelevant. Do you really
>think a Latino would not even think about a Coup? Or corruption?
>Or suspension of the Constitution? Military dictatorship? Not a
>mention once? At all?
Fighting in a war and having a military are two vastly different things.
There is no Lunar military. Therefore, no coup, no dictatorship.
Corruption yes, but how do you guard against it? Suspension of the
Constitution? There is no logical way that some thing _in_ the
constitution will keep any one from suspending it.
>>>>>Again not the attitude likely to be found anywhere else.
>>>>Point being?
>>>He's an American who RAH decided to make a Hispanic for whatever
>>>personal reasons RAH had at that time.
>>Quite the racist attitude.
>Really? How so?
'Make Hispanic?'
>>By that argument, I could claim that _you_ are
>>essentially a White American.
>No doubt you could. However if we discussed *any* issue
>for long you would quickly realise I am not. Try baseball.
Try the same with me. I dislike baseball and don't even know the first
thing about how it is organized. Besides we _have_ been discussing this
issue for long and you do sound (except for occational references to your
home country) like an American. No odd word choices. Few odd spellings.
No attitudes that I have not seen here. Etc.
David Rysdam
>>I don't think you know the US nearly as well as you think you do.
>>Could you please describe this culture for us?
>Not very well I couldn't. I shall not try. I would claim that
>libertarianism is uniquely American both as a political ideology
>and on a lower scale as a attitude to government but that would
>be asking for trouble. The US *does* have a culture - that is why
>the French want films exempted from GATT and I trust them to know
>culture when they see it :-)
Joe's Contradiction #37
Statement 1) I do not and will not describe American culture.
Statement 2) American culture is....
Statement 3(from other sources) Everyone in RAH's books is from this
culture of which I know nothing.
I don't think that is going to fly.
Bob Goudreau
>
>>1) The US is a dominant nation (in the book) only in the sense that it is
>>one of the 'big' countries. China, The USSR (or it's equivalent) and a
>>lot of other people are also 'dominant'.
>
>Alright I'll accept that. RAH does list it first but I don't suppose
>that means much. Anyway back to my original point - Independence Day
>is fixed to make it the Four of July. Why?
The answer is above: the US is one of the big influential countries,
(and apparently the one whose government is most sensitive to public
opinion), so the Prof wants to influence US public opinion in order to
gain recognition for the Luna republic. Why would this be unusual or
surprising? This sort of publicity stunt occurs in modern geopolitics
too; witness the intentional parallels between the "Goddess of
Democracy" statue and the Statue of Liberty by the Tianenmen students
several years ago, or the publicity campaign waged by Slovenia and
Croatia towards the German public, which eventually achieved its goal
of getting Germany to pressure the rest of the EC into recognizing the
independence of those two countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Charles Fisher
>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>In article <drysda02.752726922@ursa> drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes:
>>>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>>>>Nothing from our history there.
>>>>>Have you studied your history?
>>>>Yep. Want to try me? Draw a comparison, I'll tell you where you're wrong.
>>>Penal colony.
>>Ahh but wrong sort and wrong governmental system. It is true that
>>convicts in tMiaHM had to work at least for a time but we weren't
>>quite such a dumping ground for riff raff. Unlike the US was in
>>the old days. There are no control mechanisms so exactly how they
>>could make all those convicts work I don't know - I guess many of
>>them were just let go once they go there. Not like it used to be
No. Specific mention in the book that prisoners were kept seperate, and
not released until their sentences were up. While the de-facto sentence
was transportation to Luna, criminals were given specific terms to serve;
the "only" thing that kept them in Luna afterwards was that they couldn't
return to Earth without suffering a quick and unpleasant death.
>>for us! No convicts were leased out, there were no special sites
>>for "discipline" a la Port Arthur, Norfolk Island. I think the
>>penal part has more in common with American history as a criminal
>>dump site than with ours.
>Is Luna A Dumping Ground?: Yes, but the "riff-raff" dies within months if
>not days.
>Control Mechanism: Work or die of starvation.
>Discipline Sites: No farther than the nearest airlock.
>The Penal Parts, American History and Australia Connection:
>A) The early Americans were not wanted in their own country, true. But
>they came to the US of _their_own_free_will_. Early Australians did not.
Some of the colonies were used as penal colonies. Most notably Georgia, which
was established as one.
>B) For the convicts involved (if any in the case of the US) it would be
>much, much easier to get to England from the US than from Australia. It
>would about as difficult to get from Au to En as from Luna to Earth.
... rest of post deleted...
--
Chuck Fisher ch...@aix3090b.uky.edu
This space reserved for future pithy comment
Don Harlow
>
>[On the moon as a penal colony in tMiaHM]
>The Penal Parts, American History and Australia Connection:
>A) The early Americans were not wanted in their own country, true. But
>they came to the US of _their_own_free_will_. Early Australians did not.
>
Parts of the Colonies were, in fact, penal colonies -- e.g. Georgia. One
of the reasons for the opening of Australia at the end of the 1780's was
the fact that the 13 Colonies in North America were no longer available
as a dumping ground for convicts.
--
Don Harlow do...@netcom.com
Esperanto League (Info only) (800)828-5944 or el...@netcom.com
Turnig^as la Rado de la Tempo,
kaj postlasas multajn vojkadavretojn. (Lau^ Robert Jordan)
Joseph Askew
>Isn't history fun: The British have a long history of meddling in US
>politics and economy, and
>(fear of) their political influence was one of the major factors in
>precipitating the US Civil War. They are
>owners of vast parts of the US economy, and still (or until very recently)
>the foreign nation with
>the largest investment in the US.
Now you are just being silly. Stop it. Or else you may have
to provide a scrap of evidence of some of these claims.
>How many US'ians rant and rave about the British presence (or even give
>them a nod)?
Quite a few rant about Northern Ireland.
>Sigurd
>(Can you tell the color of my hair from the contents of my writing?)
No but I can make a good guess as to your politics and favourite
author. :-)
Michael Friedman
>In article <drysda02.752288983@ursa> drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes:
>>>Nearly all of RAH's books require the main character to be
>>>a white American. They can only make sense if that is assumed
>>>at any rate. Can anyone imagine a RAH book with the hero as an
>>>Islamic Fundamentalist for instance?
>>As a matter of fact, Brother 'Stinky' Mahmoud from SiaSL is Islamic. You
>>may argue that he is not a 'hero' but he is one of the 'first-called.'
>You might notice that (a) I have mentioned SiaSL before as an exception
>(b) he is not a fundamentalist (though I can't bring myself to reread it
>so I might be remembering incorrectly)
I'm not sure if he is a fundamentalist, but he is pretty serious about
his religion.
>and the fact that he is called
>"Stinky" ought to tell you something.
What? Are you suggesting that "Stinky" is derogatory?
>>>This is slightly off centre. The "secret internal directorate"
>>>reflects his silly adolescent attitudes to revolution and does
>>>not apply to the government system. Yes he says that the masses
>>>have to be manipulated by leaders, hardly an attitude alien to
>>>Washinton or Jefferson. I can easily see them sharing exactly
>>>the same opinion. That was, after all, why they made America a
>>>Republic.
>>Well, of course. Prof. says that he modeled the 'constitution' on the one
>>written by Jefferson. However, he also says that that constitution (J's)
>>didn't get implemented as he wanted.
>It did not get implemented as they BOTH wanted. So one of the main
>characters - supposedly a Latin American - gets *all* his political
>attitudes from a dead Anglo.
I think this is an appalling misreading of the book. Prof gets his
political attitudes from himself. He recognizes that Jefferson had
some similar attitudes and that the Constitution that Jefferson wrote
could be used to produce a nation that Prof would like.
>Not a word about Bolivar or Peron or anyone else from outside the US.
Why should there be? Bolivar was a revolutionary and a Latin American
nationalist. The revolutionary bit was done better by Lenin, Mao,
Giap, and Che Guevera. The Latin American nationalist part is
irrelevant to Luna. Similar arguments apply to Peron. Peron ruled
with a cult of personality. Peronism without Peron, or at least his
memory, is kind of pointless.
>Notice that the Professor did not
>even update the language of the Declaration of Independence. Well,
>at least the horrid "inalienable" bit anyway.
Of course not. He was laying on the symbolism as thick as he could.
>>BTW, how can you equate the opinions of Jefferson with the opinions of
>>Americans in general? Jefferson was British. America didn't even exist
>>at that time.
>Jefferson was born in Virginia, he went to University in Virginia,
>he passed through England all of once that I can think of (on his
>way to France) so exactly how can you say he was British? Jefferson
>represents a rather large subset of America opinion then and now. He
>represents essentially a null set of nonAmericans.
Excuse me, but Jefferson represented a small minority of Americans
then and virtually none now. What of Jefferson's positions do you
think are held by a large subset of Americans?
>>>Actually no. He does not say that *government* should step in and
>>>save the Moon - he puts his faith in technology developing an answer
>>>in time. There is no mentionm or even hint of government subisdy for
>>>importing sewage to the moon only that if given the task engineers
>>>can do anything. A Free Market solution.
>>Not even close. The technology already existed for them to transport
>>cheaply to Luna. The gov'ts of the world had to be convinced that that
>>was the only way it was going to work.
>You mean he insisted that the Government get out of the way of
>private industry in developing the catapult? An entirely common
>libertarian attitude.
Yup. Except he pitched the catapult to countries and it was pretty
clear that it was the countries he needed to convince.
>His faith is in technology developing not
>in government. They did not have the catapult because of the Lunar
>Authority not because the governments of the Earth had to be convinced.
Wrong. They did not have the catapult because it was not needed by
anyone who was willing to pay for it. In fact, the absence of the
catapult was a classic free market failure.
Daniel Blum
> Well lets see Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua (occupied it
> for 20 odd years), Panama, Colombia, Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic,
> I'll ignore Chile because I suppose you only helped them to do it
> themselves, Argentinia no, Brazil no, Costa Rica not that I know
> of but I would be suprised if you didn't (I'll count that as a no),
> Venezuela? I think so but I cannot remember when - no again. El
> Salvador yep occupied in the twenties I believe. That's ten by my
> count. How many have I missed? Some of these are multiple or long
> term occupations too. I call that most. How about you? (I can't
> think of Ecuador or Peru or Bolivia or Paraguay or Uraguay at the
> moment but I'll find out if anyone is interested)
> Joseph Askew
Well, the Prof is from Peru, as I recall (wasn't he arrested in Lima?), so why
should we expect anti-American opinions from him? They ARE different
countries down there, you know, with different political atmospheres.
Maybe Peru has a Shining Path-descended government in this future and the
dissidents get their inspiration from capitalist philosophy... although I'll
grant that we're not shown anything like that (did Sendero exist when this
book was written?).
Re earlier remarks which I can't find now... no, I wouldn't expect the Irish
to forgive the English anytime soon, because of an ongoing Situation there.
If we assume that in the future of TMiaHM the US has kept its nose clean
with regard to Latin America for at least a few decades (not an impossibility),
then I don't have any problem assuming that ani-Americanism would die down
as a major force there. If the French and English can keep their mutual
enmity down to a dull roar, anyone can...
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@genesis.mcs.com
"I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."
_______________________________________________________________________
Joseph Askew
>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>>>>Nothing from our history there.
>>>Penal colony.
>>Ahh but wrong sort and wrong governmental system.
>Is Luna A Dumping Ground?: Yes, but the "riff-raff" dies within months if
>not days.
In our history convicts worked in chain gnags or were leased out
to free or freed settlers. Only in America were they essentially
let go as, it would appear, they mostly were in tMiaHM. Also of
course we had a large military presence.
>Control Mechanism: Work or die of starvation.
But no chain gang. No Port Arthur.
>Discipline Sites: No farther than the nearest airlock.
Official murders? Where were they mentioned?
>The Penal Parts, American History and Australia Connection:
>A) The early Americans were not wanted in their own country, true. But
>they came to the US of _their_own_free_will_. Early Australians did not.
*Some* Americans came of their own free will (and if this was a.p.l I
would argue how free those decisions were) but many were convicts sent
to America and told to go away.
>>Yep I deserved that. Silly me. Still he is only part nonWhite
>>and we don't even know which part. Besides he likes baseball.
>>Must be an American.
>I hope you are joking.
Yes.
>Also, what does part nonWhite mean? The question is not "to what extent
>are the character white" the question is "are their any nonwhite
>characters" By your own admition Mannie is.
Not exactly. RAH decided to call him non-White for some reason
I do not know. Whether or not it is justifiable to call him so
is another question.
>>No? In his attitude to almost everything? Are you quite
>>sure about this one? He is not exactly Japanese is he?
>>Nor even English, he ain't a Bengali either. Exactly
>>what do you think he was?
>Loonie.
Oh neat comeback.
>>Some guy in the background we never meet. It would have been more
>>interesting to have the Chinese support the existing order as they
>>almost certainly would. They have long memories of civil wars and
>>rebellions, some even support governments that openly discriminate
>>against them (cf Malaysia, Indonesia)
>Of course, I forgot. Culture = Race. If a man's eyes have epicanthic
>folds he must have a long memory of civil wars and rebellions.
Now you are being silly. People are Chinese by culture not by race.
>>That depends how many Americans were killed by the Stamp Act (and
>>the US has a long long history of involvement in Latin America
>>and still retains vast amounts of what used to be Latin American.)
>>Do you think the Russians would have forgiven the Germans by then?
>>Or the Irish the English?
>Hate = Number of People Killed / Length of Time Since?
As a good first approximation yes. History seems to bear me out.
Joseph Askew
>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>He is not fundamentalist but sure is serious about it. What should
>>>'Stinky' tell me?
>>Met many Iranians called "Stinky" lately? Many Pakistanis perhaps?
>>Surely this is an American nickname?
>Yes, it is. But I could call you "Stinky" and you would still not be
>American, so what is your point?
No I would not be. My friends, however, would not call me Stinky
for precisely that reason. It is an Americanism. It is not something
that you would find many nonAmericans calling themselves.
>>>No, Prof did not get his political attitude from a 'dead Anglo'. He had a
>>>political alignment (Rational Anarchy).
>>Who does he say the first Rational Anarchist was?
>Who was the first Christian? Am I a Hebrew?
Are you a Christian? did you then get your attitude from a Dead Jew?
>>>He (being educated) had
>>>read "Jefferson's" D of I.
>>Bzzzt. I like to consider myself educated. Like to ask
>>me if I've read the DofI? I might have read Locke from
>>whom it was cribbed but then I am probably overeducated.
>Then stop considering yourself fully educated on this subject. How can
>you discuss Jefferson without having read him?
Because I have read other things he has written and best of all I
have read those philosophers he plagarised from.
>>>Because he was born in a British colony.
>>It's nice to know I'm British.
>You erased the rest of that paragraph for the convenience of your
>argument. That is not polite or intelligent.
Perhaps not. It still does not change the fact that he was not
British but a Virginian. He did not consider himself British
(Or do you have a quotation where he does?) nor did the British
(and I have a couple from Samuel Johnson)
>>>Wrong again. He had no concern whatsoever about private industry.
>>Except of course they were the ones who built the catapult.
>Which was intended only to throw rocks. No trade going on there.
The ones of the Earth.
>>Luna was free because the Authority was defeated. China did recognise
>>their Independence hence dealing a blow to the FN's plans. Veto powers
>>and all that.
>The FN never got a chance to decide the matter.
And so? This means they weren't defeated?
>Read the book more
>closely and you will learn that the first group that Mannie and Prof
>talked to were the "tame dogs" of Authority, not of the FN. The FN had to
>be convinced that it was in their best interest to step in on what they
>originally saw as in-fighting in Authority. (note that Authority was a
>business that the gov't was interfering with--again not Libertarian.)
The Authority was not a business but an arm of the FN. The Authority
was a government organisation chartered by the FN and under its control.
>>>I forget what the point was here, but, FYI, Prof say Luna as a free port
>>>(something else quite unAmerican).
>>Is it? Surely straight out of Libertarian economic thinking. And
>>what was that bit about entangling alliances? Surely he's quoting
>>Washington now?
>Libertarian = American?
I have been over this before.
>>This is true. However they do have a common history more or less
>>which forms common(ish) attitudes to various issues. At least that
>>history provides a unique framework within which political debate
>>is largely confined. Quoting Jfferson Davis will not work in Africa
>>nor in most of the US but in certain parts of the US quoting Davis
>>might win you an argument "Jefferson Davis said...". Try quoting
>>what the Third Iman said about alcohol in the US and in Iran. Then
>>you will see the impact of history on politics.
>You aren't talking about impact, though. You are talking about some kind
>of indoctrination.
That's what growing up is all about. You are taught things. Attitudes
too. Quoting Jefferson Davis is a good example. Only a Southerner of
a particular sort would sensibly do so.
>>This is also true. But on what basis besides RAH word do you assume
>>the Professor *was* raised in this particular country?
>You do realize that any "basis" I come up with will still be RAH's word,
>don't you?
No. Wyoh was a female character. We agree on that I assume. If you
remove all the explicit references to her gender you can still tell
that she is a woman. It is a integral part of the story, though maybe
not a major part. If you removed all the "Sen~or"s and "Amigo"s and
changed the name slightly any reasonable person, if asked to guess,
would assume the Professor was a MidWestern Maths teacher as I bet
the person the character is based on was.
>And when that dialogue is written in English by an American, for the
>consumption of Americans.....
Hack author.
>>Ahh but stuff about Virginian politics in the late eighteenth
>>century does.
>So? Is Prof. so closeminded that he sees no good in the works of the past
>in another context?
Don't you think it a little odd that a supposedly Latino thinks that
the works and writings of a dead Virginian are more important than
his own history? So much so that his own history is totally excluded?
>Fighting in a war and having a military are two vastly different things.
They had a military of sorts. Whether the Prof intended it to be
permanent I can't say. He died before he could do anything. Odd
that he does not once mention even the possibility.
>There is no Lunar military. Therefore, no coup, no dictatorship.
Yes there was.
>Corruption yes, but how do you guard against it?
I do not know I am not a Latino.
>Suspension of the
>Constitution? There is no logical way that some thing _in_ the
>constitution will keep any one from suspending it.
Ahh but the fact that the Constitution could at any time be
suspended and likely to be so colours anyones attitudes to
the things. Why would the Prof even bother to include any
provisions in a Constitution which he had good reason to
suppose would not last out the decade? Why would the Prof be
discussing Constitutions at all?
>>>>He's an American who RAH decided to make a Hispanic for whatever
>>>>personal reasons RAH had at that time.
>>>Quite the racist attitude.
>>Really? How so?
>'Make Hispanic?'
O.K. You want to be picky (over what I have no idea) He *called*
him an Hispanic. More like a Black and White Minstrel.
>Try the same with me. I dislike baseball and don't even know the first
>thing about how it is organized. Besides we _have_ been discussing this
>issue for long and you do sound (except for occational references to your
>home country) like an American. No odd word choices. Few odd spellings.
>No attitudes that I have not seen here. Etc.
This is partly because we have been discussing a very restricted
subject - one author and essentially one book - and partly because
we are not talking face to face but mostly because we are both more
or less the same anyway. We are both male Anglos with a very long
common heritage. Despite that even you have noticed a few odd word
choices, odd spellings and references to my home country (none there
for the Professor unless he is Argentinian. Some bomb throwing I
guess but which country did he come from?) We are talking about a
very different person. No common language, no common religion (unless
you are a Catholic I suppose and even then the traditions are different),
no common history since the end of the Roman Empire. Yet he sounds just
like an elderly old fashioned American.
Joseph Askew
>In article <2bjv9p$m...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>Anyway back to my original point - Independence Day
>>is fixed to make it the Four of July. Why?
>The answer is above: the US is one of the big influential countries,
>(and apparently the one whose government is most sensitive to public
>opinion), so the Prof wants to influence US public opinion in order to
>gain recognition for the Luna republic. Why would this be unusual or
>surprising?
RAH does not say so that I know of. Care to cite a page? He does say
afterward that it was a propaganda bonus but that is different. Why
is it unusual? It involves direct falsification of a nations history.
Not the sort of thing people take lying down.
>This sort of publicity stunt occurs in modern geopolitics
>too; witness the intentional parallels between the "Goddess of
>Democracy" statue and the Statue of Liberty by the Tianenmen students
>several years ago,
If I might be permitted a minor spelling point it's Tian1 (Heaven)
An1 (Peace) Men2 (Gate). That is different for various reasons, the
best being that was pure propaganda and the US is the *only* power
left. In RAH book this is not the case. There is a big difference
between faking dates and passing off a piece of foam as a statue.
James Nicoll + Jasmine
>
>>one of the 'big' countries. China, The USSR (or it's equivalent) and a
>>lot of other people are also 'dominant'.
>
>Alright I'll accept that. RAH does list it first but I don't suppose
>that means much. Anyway back to my original point - Independence Day
>is fixed to make it the Four of July. Why?
If memory serves, they also managed in some way to make May 5th a
significant date while they were visiting nations where that's a date
with heavy associations. I think they idea was to create a connection
in the minds of the Terran nationals between Luna's independence and
that of whichever nation they found themselves in.
Rene Levesque, who was leader of the pro-separation Parti
Quebecois in Canada, used to try to compare Quebec leaving Canada
to the 13 Colonies revolting when drumming up support in the USA
[The USAmericans tended to think instead of the CSA splitting away
in the 1960s]. Despite using that tactic, I think one can say a
Rene Levesque was not a USAmerican.
James Nicoll
--
If mail bounces, try jdni...@engrg.uwo.ca
"What the hell do you mean by trying to kill yourself in the middle of a
performance? Before a performance, perhaps: after a performance, possibly. But
what [...] possessed you to do it while you still have an entrance to make?
Jay Gooby
I'd like some help and recomendations please!
If anyone has read any novels/short stories which feature forests and
have a pagan element or atmosphere in them, then I'd love to hear
about them!
Books I've read so far are;
The Devil in a Forest
Mythago Wood
Lavondys
The Bone Forest
and two more I can't remember the name of right now! (useful huh?)
I *think* they were by Charles DeLint.
Any suggestions greatly appreciated!
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Disclaimer: You know it.
"Hey! Wait a minute, aren't you..." |
| Email: j...@dsbc.icl.co.uk
Pam Korda
it up into bits. once i get that done, you can all get your Nov. FAQ.
ok? just calm down and go do something constructive.
now i know how all those bookstore people felt when we were all
bugging them about tFoH.
--pam, exasperated FAQueen.
==============================================================================
Pam Korda |"Nobody ever accused the Invid of
ko...@midway.uchicago.edu | being logical, only thorough."
ko...@tmn.com | --Robotech
==============================================================================
The University of Chicago regards me as a Tuition-Paying Unit, and would
be shocked to discover that I had any opinions whatsoever.
James Nicoll + Jasmine
>
> Rene Levesque, who was leader of the pro-separation Parti
>Quebecois in Canada, used to try to compare Quebec leaving Canada
>to the 13 Colonies revolting when drumming up support in the USA
>[The USAmericans tended to think instead of the CSA splitting away
>in the 1960s]. Despite using that tactic, I think one can say a
David Rysdam
>drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes in a recent posting (reference <drysda02.752786807@ursa>):
>>
>>[On the moon as a penal colony in tMiaHM]
>>The Penal Parts, American History and Australia Connection:
>>A) The early Americans were not wanted in their own country, true. But
>>they came to the US of _their_own_free_will_. Early Australians did not.
>>
>Parts of the Colonies were, in fact, penal colonies -- e.g. Georgia. One
>of the reasons for the opening of Australia at the end of the 1780's was
>the fact that the 13 Colonies in North America were no longer available
>as a dumping ground for convicts.
>--
Oh yeah. I forgot about that. But the point that there is a parallel
between Luna and Australia still stands.
Hugh G. Stocks
>
>I'd like some help and recomendations please!
The best "forest" book I can remember is _Midworld_ by Alan Dean
Foster. Also one of his best novels on any subject.
--
Hugh Stocks, AA6MQ ****** hst...@bcf.usc.edu
KUSC-FM, Los Angeles, CA 90007 ** (RADIO ONLY: aa6mq@wb6wfh.#soca.ca)
(213) 743-0001 ****[This space intentionally left undisclaimed]
When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.
David Rysdam
>In article <drysda02.752786807@ursa> drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes:
>>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>Is Luna A Dumping Ground?: Yes, but the "riff-raff" dies within months if
>>not days.
>In our history convicts worked in chain gnags or were leased out
>to free or freed settlers. Only in America were they essentially
>let go as, it would appear, they mostly were in tMiaHM. Also of
>course we had a large military presence.
Also, of course, letting somebody go in America (where there is plenty of
food, water and oxygen) is much different than letting them go on the Moon
(where none of these things exist unless you pay for the). TANSTAAFL.
>>Control Mechanism: Work or die of starvation.
>But no chain gang. No Port Arthur.
Define chain gang in such a way as to exclude my example.
>>Discipline Sites: No farther than the nearest airlock.
>Official murders? Where were they mentioned?
Are you asking if there were official murders on the Moon? Read the
"Judge Brody" section of the book.
>>The Penal Parts, American History and Australia Connection:
>>A) The early Americans were not wanted in their own country, true. But
>>they came to the US of _their_own_free_will_. Early Australians did not.
>*Some* Americans came of their own free will (and if this was a.p.l I
>would argue how free those decisions were) but many were convicts sent
>to America and told to go away.
>>>Yep I deserved that. Silly me. Still he is only part nonWhite
>>>and we don't even know which part. Besides he likes baseball.
>>>Must be an American.
>>I hope you are joking.
>Yes.
>>Also, what does part nonWhite mean? The question is not "to what extent
>>are the character white" the question is "are their any nonwhite
>>characters" By your own admition Mannie is.
>Not exactly. RAH decided to call him non-White for some reason
>I do not know. Whether or not it is justifiable to call him so
>is another question.
If someone's skin is not white then that person is not white. Simple
logic. If a person's skin is not white they may be of _any_ culture.
Again, simple logic (with one hidden assumption: A culture is something
you grow up in.) RAH never names the culture from which Mannie came. He
does name the skin color (or at least says it is not white.) Using the
above premises we can conclude the following: Mannie is not white.
Mannie's culture is unknown.
>>>No? In his attitude to almost everything? Are you quite
>>>sure about this one? He is not exactly Japanese is he?
>>>Nor even English, he ain't a Bengali either. Exactly
>>>what do you think he was?
>>Loonie.
>Oh neat comeback.
The truth often is. Again, given that fact that culture is something you
grow up in, we see that Mannie _cannot_ be from any other culture.
>>>Some guy in the background we never meet. It would have been more
>>>interesting to have the Chinese support the existing order as they
>>>almost certainly would. They have long memories of civil wars and
>>>rebellions, some even support governments that openly discriminate
>>>against them (cf Malaysia, Indonesia)
>>Of course, I forgot. Culture = Race. If a man's eyes have epicanthic
>>folds he must have a long memory of civil wars and rebellions.
>Now you are being silly. People are Chinese by culture not by race.
Why are you supposing that this man is Chinese by culture?
>>>That depends how many Americans were killed by the Stamp Act (and
>>>the US has a long long history of involvement in Latin America
>>>and still retains vast amounts of what used to be Latin American.)
>>>Do you think the Russians would have forgiven the Germans by then?
>>>Or the Irish the English?
>>Hate = Number of People Killed / Length of Time Since?
>As a good first approximation yes. History seems to bear me out.
All right, then let's start filling in some of these variables. Number of
people killed in Peru by Americans = ? (you fill in the number). Length
of time since = ? (remember to add at least 50 years--this is set in the
2040's or somewhere around there). Note: I don't really intend to try to
calculate hate as a mathematical function. I am just trying to show how
innaccurate this view can be.
David Rysdam
>No I would not be. My friends, however, would not call me Stinky
>for precisely that reason. It is an Americanism. It is not something
>that you would find many nonAmericans calling themselves.
'His friends' (or all the ones we see) _are_ Americans.
>>Who was the first Christian? Am I a Hebrew?
>Are you a Christian? did you then get your attitude from a Dead Jew?
Let's assume I am. No, I didn't. I got it from my parents and peers.
>>Then stop considering yourself fully educated on this subject. How can
>>you discuss Jefferson without having read him?
>Because I have read other things he has written and best of all I
>have read those philosophers he plagarised from.
If the D of I is plagarised from other works, than what is to say the Prof
didn't get his ideas from those works? You could say "Because he mentions
Jefferson specifically" but he never says he got the ideas from J. Just
that J held them. Possibly J. was the only man who held this entire
collection of ideas. Or possibly RAH felt that J. was someone the readers
could relate to more easily than, say, Locke.
>Perhaps not. It still does not change the fact that he was not
>British but a Virginian. He did not consider himself British
>(Or do you have a quotation where he does?) nor did the British
>(and I have a couple from Samuel Johnson)
Ok. From now on I declare myself Australian. I'm sure I can get one of
your fellow countrymen to agree with me. Am I Australian by culture, now?
No, I suspect it is not that easy. I think that I am still culturally
American.
>>>>Wrong again. He had no concern whatsoever about private industry.
>>>Except of course they were the ones who built the catapult.
>>Which was intended only to throw rocks. No trade going on there.
>The ones of the Earth.
Ok. The ones of Earth. Mannie and Prof are shown (in the book)
specifically talking to only about 4 people about the wonders that the
catapult would bring. The most extensive by far, was the Chinese
gentleman--who was in the gov't. The only businessmen they talked to were
being persuaded that there was money to be made on the Moon and thus were
to vote with Luna.
>>Read the book more
>>closely and you will learn that the first group that Mannie and Prof
>>talked to were the "tame dogs" of Authority, not of the FN. The FN had to
>>be convinced that it was in their best interest to step in on what they
>>originally saw as in-fighting in Authority. (note that Authority was a
>>business that the gov't was interfering with--again not Libertarian.)
>The Authority was not a business but an arm of the FN. The Authority
>was a government organisation chartered by the FN and under its control.
Authority was a business. This is extremely clear. To what extent they
were under the control of the FN is a little hazy. From references to
their relationship (eg. Authority existed before FN did) it would appear
that Authority wields more control than the FN.
>>>This is true. However they do have a common history more or less
>>>which forms common(ish) attitudes to various issues. At least that
>>>history provides a unique framework within which political debate
>>>is largely confined. Quoting Jfferson Davis will not work in Africa
>>>nor in most of the US but in certain parts of the US quoting Davis
>>>might win you an argument "Jefferson Davis said...". Try quoting
>>>what the Third Iman said about alcohol in the US and in Iran. Then
>>>you will see the impact of history on politics.
>>You aren't talking about impact, though. You are talking about some kind
>>of indoctrination.
>That's what growing up is all about. You are taught things. Attitudes
>too. Quoting Jefferson Davis is a good example. Only a Southerner of
>a particular sort would sensibly do so.
When and where did Jefferson (Thomas, that is) grow up? What culture was
he exposed to?
>>>This is also true. But on what basis besides RAH word do you assume
>>>the Professor *was* raised in this particular country?
>>You do realize that any "basis" I come up with will still be RAH's word,
>>don't you?
>No. Wyoh was a female character. We agree on that I assume. If you
>remove all the explicit references to her gender you can still tell
>that she is a woman. It is a integral part of the story, though maybe
>not a major part. If you removed all the "Sen~or"s and "Amigo"s and
>changed the name slightly any reasonable person, if asked to guess,
>would assume the Professor was a MidWestern Maths teacher as I bet
>the person the character is based on was.
How can I tell she is a woman? I'm looking for specific examples, here.
>>And when that dialogue is written in English by an American, for the
>>consumption of Americans.....
>Hack author.
?
>>>Ahh but stuff about Virginian politics in the late eighteenth
>>>century does.
>>So? Is Prof. so closeminded that he sees no good in the works of the past
>>in another context?
>Don't you think it a little odd that a supposedly Latino thinks that
>the works and writings of a dead Virginian are more important than
>his own history? So much so that his own history is totally excluded?
But you said before that this dead Virginian got his ideas from somebody
else, didn't you?
>>Fighting in a war and having a military are two vastly different things.
>They had a military of sorts. Whether the Prof intended it to be
>permanent I can't say. He died before he could do anything. Odd
>that he does not once mention even the possibility.
Inasmuch as there are no taxes on Luna, they would have a hard time
supporting a standing army.
>>Corruption yes, but how do you guard against it?
>I do not know I am not a Latino.
Only Latinos know how to guard against corruption. Or are you saying that
you don't know how _Prof_ would have handled it? Either way, my point was
that guarding against corruption is well nigh unto impossible.
>>Suspension of the
>>Constitution? There is no logical way that some thing _in_ the
>>constitution will keep any one from suspending it.
>Ahh but the fact that the Constitution could at any time be
>suspended and likely to be so colours anyones attitudes to
>the things. Why would the Prof even bother to include any
>provisions in a Constitution which he had good reason to
>suppose would not last out the decade? Why would the Prof be
>discussing Constitutions at all?
Why wouldn't he expect it to last out the decade? He can see America from
where he is, and he knows it worked (fairly well, anyway) here.
>>>>>He's an American who RAH decided to make a Hispanic for whatever
>>>>>personal reasons RAH had at that time.
>>>>Quite the racist attitude.
>>>Really? How so?
>>'Make Hispanic?'
>O.K. You want to be picky (over what I have no idea) He *called*
>him an Hispanic. More like a Black and White Minstrel.
He created a character. He claimed that this character is Hispanic.
Therefore this character, however much his acts conflict with what you
consider Hispanic, is Hispanic.
>>Try the same with me. I dislike baseball and don't even know the first
>>thing about how it is organized. Besides we _have_ been discussing this
>>issue for long and you do sound (except for occational references to your
>>home country) like an American. No odd word choices. Few odd spellings.
>>No attitudes that I have not seen here. Etc.
>This is partly because we have been discussing a very restricted
>subject - one author and essentially one book
tMiaHM is about two restricted subjects.
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>In 1893, a totally assimilated Polish American would have seemed very
>unlikely, about as unlikely as your "totally assimilated African".
>So what? That was then, this is now, and certain prejudices of a
>century ago have pretty much faded. Are you so certain that today's
>prejudices won't fade in the future? I think Heinlein believed (or
>wanted us to believe) that they would fade.
I would take this one step further: I think that, through his carefully-planted
and often hard-to-notice "revelations" of character's non-white "status" late in
several of his books (minimum set: STARSHIP TROOPERS, THE MOON IS. . ., and THE
CAT WHO. . .), Heinlein was attempting to directly influence and *encourage*
this "fading."
The intent which I would impute to Heinlein for this strategy is as follows:
SF readers, in huge predominance at least through the early '70s and to a lesser
extent even today, are white males. By giving these readers a strongly-
identifiable-with character, and then revealing that the character was "not-
white," Heinlein -- I suggest -- hoped to "break down" the resistance of white
readers to identification with non-whites in the real world.
Whether or not this strategy had any effect; whether it *could* have any effect;
whether in fact it annoyed some readers; all this is subject to debate. That it
had a profound effect on at least one *non*-white reader, Samuel R. Delany, is a
matter of public record.
All of the above, of course, is subject to disclaimers about the ultimate
unknowability of auctorial intent; as I said, I *impute* this intent to RAH,
without claiming that it was definitely so.
>And if the prejudices fade, so will lots of the attitudes of
>resentment that you keep harping on as the main ways to recognize a
>person's heritage.
Unfortunately, the Poles you mention, the Irish, the Jews, and so on, are
easier to "assimilate" than blacks. [Long disquisiton on the desirability
or lack thereof of "assimilation" is here noted but not entered because I
don't want to bore everyone.] Blacks, unlike Poles, Irish, and Jews, don't
*look* like white americans after they lose their accents. [Equally long
disquisiton on why American blacks seem to have a recognizable accent --
actually there are a number of different ones -- also omitted as not
particularly relevant.]
Now for the digression *not* to be omitted -- why is it that Asian-americans
don't seem to have this problem?
One answer is "they do." There are Asian ghettoes -- e.g., Chinatowns --
in which third-generation native-born citizens *still* speak broken English
at best. But these are not as economically depressed as black ghettoes, and
not as riddled with crime. White middle-class Americans aren't afraid to walk
through their local Chinatown at night. So "they do" simply won't wash as an
answer.
The only answer I can give is -- I don't know. Clearly color is *not* an
absolute barrier; there are at this point many "assimilated" blacks working at
all levels of government and business.
But the *average* remains way low. And the barrier, while not absolute, is
still a very clear reality. The way up involves accepting (or appearing to
accept) the values -- and the speech manners! -- of the plurality (*not*
a majority, and it never will be again) of whites.
If we are to value diversity -- and I suppose we are -- then this is not a good
answer. But it seems to be a true one, at least for now.
--Dan'l, who somehow
manages to be proud
of his white heritage
Rebecca Leann Smit Crowley
: Mythago Wood
: Lavondys
: The Bone Forest
Those three are by Robert Holdstock. Don't know about _Devil in
a Forest_.
I suppose I could take this opportunity to chime in with another
recommendation for _Deed of Paksennarion_ books by Elizabeth
Moon -- they have a nifty pseudo-druidic group and they get
(some of?) their power (sort of) from the taig.
But I've been doing this a lot lately, so I should quit now.
--
Rebecca Crowley standard disclaimers apply rcro...@zso.dec.com
It doesn't matter. You can't tell. People are probably lying to you.
Bob Goudreau
>In article <sigurd-08...@apeskrekk.ii.uib.no> sig...@ii.uib.no (Sigurd Meldal) writes:
>
>>Isn't history fun: The British have a long history of meddling in US
>>politics and economy, and
>>(fear of) their political influence was one of the major factors in
>>precipitating the US Civil War. They are
>>owners of vast parts of the US economy, and still (or until very recently)
>>the foreign nation with
>>the largest investment in the US.
>
>Now you are just being silly. Stop it. Or else you may have
>to provide a scrap of evidence of some of these claims.
Silly? I think not. All of his claims are true:
1) "The British have a long history of meddling in US politics and
economy...". Naturally. Even after independence, the British
Empire continued to be the dominant trading partner of the new
country. During the War of 1812, there was a strong pro-British,
anti-war sentiment in New England due to the extensive trading ties
that region had with Britain; some New England states even groused
about seceding from the Union. See below for a discussion of this
influence during the Civil War era. And all through the 19th and
early 20th centuries, Britain provided a large chunk of the capital
used to develop the US into a major industrial power, with
concomitant political interest and influence.
2) "... (fear of) their political influence was one of the major
factors in precipitating the US Civil War". The issue of tariffs
and foreign trade (chiefly with Britain) was indeed one of the
major motivations for secession by southern states. (Another big
one was the issue of the extension of slavery into the territories,
of course.) The CSA assiduously courted Britain for most of the
war; the thought was that "King Cotton" (the region's chief crop)
was so important to Britain's economy (remember all those textile
mills?) that Britain would recognize and aid the Confederacy.
Ultimately, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (in which the Union
first advanced the abolition of slavery, not just preservation of
the Union, as a goal of the war) helped turn the tide of British
opinion against the Confederacy.
3) "They are owners of vast parts of the US economy, and still (or
until very recently) the foreign nation with the largest investment
in the US." Yup. I believe they're still number 1, in fact --
Japan recently reached second place, but I don't think it has yet
passed the UK.
I think you owe Mr. Meldal an apology.
Bob Goudreau
>In article <1993Nov8.2...@dg-rtp.dg.com> goud...@batman.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes:
>
>>>Anyway back to my original point - Independence Day
>>>is fixed to make it the Four of July. Why?
>
>>The answer is above: the US is one of the big influential countries,
>>(and apparently the one whose government is most sensitive to public
>>opinion), so the Prof wants to influence US public opinion in order to
>>gain recognition for the Luna republic. Why would this be unusual or
>>surprising?
>
>RAH does not say so that I know of. Care to cite a page? He does say
>afterward that it was a propaganda bonus but that is different.
Huh? You ask why he deliberately engineered events to take place on
the magic date, and you admit that he later disclosed his ulterior
motives (the propaganda benefits) for doing so. Sounds to me like he
was out to influence US opinion the whole time (who else would July 4th
propaganda have any effect on?). Or are you saying that the date was a
mere coincidence?
> Why is it unusual? It involves direct falsification of a nations
> history. Not the sort of thing people take lying down.
I'm not sure what direct falsification of history you're talking about
here. Please elaborate.
>>This sort of publicity stunt occurs in modern geopolitics
>>too; witness the intentional parallels between the "Goddess of
>>Democracy" statue and the Statue of Liberty by the Tianenmen students
>>several years ago,
>
>If I might be permitted a minor spelling point it's Tian1 (Heaven)
>An1 (Peace) Men2 (Gate).
Yeah, and the possessive of "nation" is "nation's", not "nations".
> That is different for various reasons, the
>best being that was pure propaganda and the US is the *only* power
>left. In RAH book this is not the case.
Now wait, you yourself stated above that it was a "propaganda bonus"
for Luna. And I hardly agree with you that the US is the "only power
left" in today's world -- only *superpower* maybe, though some dispute
even that, and see the US as merely the stongest pole in a multi-polar
world where other poles are catching up. That latter description
sounds a lot like the situation in the book.
Michael Friedman
>In article <1993Nov4.0...@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfri...@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <2b6p0h$n...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>>How many books to you read where the fact that a
>>>>character is a white American is a major plot point?
>>>Nearly all of RAH's books require the main character to be
>>>a white American. They can only make sense if that is assumed
>>>at any rate. Can anyone imagine a RAH book with the hero as an
>>>Islamic Fundamentalist for instance?
>>Joe, this is the same kind of bigoted attitude that you showed in your
>>original post (and yes, I do mean bigoted.)
>I know I am going to regret asking but bigoted how?
Bigoted because you assume that White American and fundamentalist
Moslem or mutually exclusive.
>>Let me point something
>>out to you. White American and Islamic Fundamentalist are not
>>mutually exclusive. There are a fair number of people who are White
>>American Islamic Fundamentalists.
>There are *some* perhaps but very few. Could you name six? To be
>an IF requires attitudes it is very hard to reconcile with most
>American cultural norms.
Nope. I only know one. I'm not sure what that proves - I also only
know one Puerto Rican, but I think you would have a hard time proving
that there aren't plenty of Puerto Rican Americans.
Anyway, could you please tell us what American cultural norms are hard
to reconcile with being a fundamentalist Moslem? Just out of
curiosity, how do the dozens of Chinese, Japanese, and
Indian-Americans that I know meet these norms?
>>Now, it so happens that we know
>>that none of Heinlein's main characters are Islamic Fundamentalists
>>(though please do not forget Stinky Mahalamud(sp?) in Stranger in a
>>Strange Land) because none of his main characters have to take a time
>>out 5 times a day to pray. So what is that supposed to prove?
>It is worse than that because almost none of them epxress an opinion
>that is not found in Middle America or hold a position that is not
>in the mainstream American lexicon.
I see. So, in Middle America and the mainstream American lexicon we
can find ample support for miscegnation, incest, various forms of
polygamy being superior to monogamy, excution for being rude to women,
TANSTAAFL, beating cops to death, bombing Middle-America, free love,
heretical churches like the Fosterites, and pan-Deism? Could you
please give me directions to this part of Middle America?
>>In
>>most of Heinlein's books the main character is a white American, but
>>no big deal is made out of it.
>Fine.
>>You just kind of peripherally notice
>>it or even just assume it by default. In a couple of his books - most
>>notably Starship Troopers, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Podkayne
>>of Mars the main character is not a white American, but no big deal is
>>made out of it.
>Again fine. Except I claim that these characters *are* White Americans
>only he decided to change their colour for some reason unknowable at
>the moment.
Can you explain why you think these people are White Americans? I
mean, apparently, if Podkayne spent half her time fulminating about
how badly Maoris were treated you would consider her to be an
authentic Maori. OK. Now, what does she do that makes her White
American? You seem to be assuming that if someone doesn't have
characteristics that mark him/her as being a member of some particular
minority that the default assumption is that they are a White American.
>The problem you seem to be having with my point is that I
>claim it is not enough to say a perosn is Philippino for him to be so.
>So RAH claimed Rico was a Philippino, if he didn't tell you how could
>you tell?
Shrug. You probably couldn't. How would you expect to be able to
tell? There was a girl called Cheryl Casquejo in my suite in college.
She was Filipino. I don't think I could have told if it wasn't for
the fact that she was a little bit dark to be Chinese, she had a
Spanish name, and she told me she was Filipino when I asked.
>>Would it really be more authentic if
>>Podkayne spent most of her time railing about the injustices done to
>>Maoris by white settlers 200 years beofre her birth on a totally
>>different planet?
>No but a few comments about the present situation would be in
>character. You think that Maoris do not hold strong opinions
>about the injustices of the past and present? You think that
>the fact of past and present prejudice does not colour (if you
>will forgive the expression) their present attitudes? If you
>don't I could probably introduce you to a few.
I would not be at all surprised if Maoris who live in New Zealand have
strong feelings about the past. Podkayne, of course, is not a New
Zealander. In much the same way, I rarely think about the Holocaust,
and the only times I refer to it are when I tell people that I'm
damned if I'll give up my right to own a gun and when I tell people
who claim that the mistreatment of blacks here somehow means that I
owe them something just how silly I think their attitudes are. It's
just not a major issue in my life - it happened 25 years before I was
born on a totally different continent, none of my close relatives were
involved, and those branches of my family that were involved were
wiped out so totally that we don't have anyone who personally
remembers it and lived through it. I see no reason why a Maori a few
hundred years in the future who lives on a different planet should not
feel similarly.
>>>And I just claim he does not. Sometimes he choose to make them
>>>non-Whites but essentially they are not. In no real sense does
>>>he write about nonWhites.
>>Right. So? The same would apply if we eliminated all references to
>>race from I Will Fear No Evil, in which most of the characters were
>>white Americans. Does that mean that Heinlein doesn't write about
>>white Americans after all? I don't think that your test is valid.
>My test is the blind taste test. Where you wear a blindfold and
>try and pick the Classic Coke. If you remove all references to
>race and colour from I Will Fear No Evil and then had to guess,
>on first reading, about the origins of the characters do you
>think that you would have any problems in guessing White American?
Well, it would depend on whether I could use the rule "Most authors
write about White Americans, so if you don't have any clues about what
race someone is, guessing White American is your best bet."
>>>Actually no. He does not say that *government* should step in and
>>>save the Moon - he puts his faith in technology developing an answer
>>>in time.
>>Excuse me again. He makes it very clear that without the revolution -
>>the revolution that was carried out by that secret directorate - and
>>without the deliberately unreasonable stance that the Loonies take in
>>their negotiations with Earth - a stance controlled by that secret
>>directorate - that there isn't a hope in hell of having technology
>>provide a solution in time.
>They had the technology, they had it for a long time. What they
>also had was a short sighted blinkered Authority which would or
>could not see their best interests. It was freedom FROM government
>that was the essential condition for the catapult.
Excuse me again, but it is never suggested that a catapult is in
Authority's best interest. After all, it isn't any skin of their
backs if a bunch of convicts starve, and an Earth catapult is going to
be EXPENSIVE.
>>>There is no mentionm or even hint of government subisdy for
>>>importing sewage to the moon only that if given the task engineers
>>>can do anything. A Free Market solution.
>>Wrong again. It's made very clear that the Loonies are going to
>>refuse to ship organics to Earth unless they get organics back ton for
>>ton.
>Is it? It is made clear they *want* organics ton for ton.
More than that, it is made clear that they won't ship organics to
Earth unless they get them back ton for ton. That was the whole
reason for the revolution.
>>It is also made clear that the wheat farmers are quite willing
>>to ship wheat to earth without getting organics back in exchange. It
>>is clear that the Loony Government is stepping in and saying "Thou
>>shalt not ship organics downhill unless they send an equal amount back
>>uphill."
>Is it? Where might that be?
Joseph, get out your copy of the book. It's right there where they
discuss strategy. It's also brought up when they discuss the climax
where the Lunar catapult gets destroyed - they deliberately allowed it
to be destroyed so that there wouldn't be pressure to ship food before
the Earth catapult was ready.
>>I will agree that there is no mention of government subsidies for
>>importing sewage to the moon, but given the policy described above, I
>>hardly see why one would be needed.
>Because if it was not cost effective someone would have had to pay.
Joseph, think about it. If part of the price of food deliveries to
Earth is an organics delivery to Luna then there are two
possibilities...
1. The food is worth enough to Earth that they will pay this price.
In that case, no subsidy is needed.
2. The food is not worth enough to Earth that they will pay this
price. In that case, Earth is obviously not going to subsidise the
return shipments, and Luna obviously doesn't have the money.
Either way, subsidies are a non-issue.
>>No, but he also doesn't comment on the US experience (except for his
>>reference to the Declaration of Independence, but that's been copied
>>so often that it's almost a tradition).
>Copied by who else? Only by Americans as far as I remember. From Locke.
>By Jefferson. Still the Professors entire world view is based on the
>ideas and philosophies of Jefferson et al. The whoel book is a comment
>on the US experience.
Actually, if you take a look, I think that you will find that a lot of
countries cribbed from the D of I. For example, the French took the
beginning of the US D of I and changed "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Happiness" to "Liberty, Equality, and Brotherhood."
>>So are you claiming that an
>>authentic Hispanic has to give "at least a nod in the direction of
>>the South American experience" but that an authentic American doesn't
>>have to give at least a nod in the direction of the US experience?
>An authentic American could not help but give a nod in the direction
>of the US experience. It is part of what makes us what we are. RAH
>gives a little more than a nod though.
Nonsense. The only "nod" that he gives to the American experience is
the use of the Declaration of Independence. Of course, by your rules,
the Chinese students in Tianneman Square were Americans because they
built that Goddess of Democracy statue.
>>Do
>>you really think that the copying of the US Declaration of
>>Independence is that ever so important nod that would not have been
>>there if de la Paz was authentically Hispanic?
>I think a Hispanic would not have copied the Declaration of
>Independence, no. He might have written a new one based on it
>but only an American would carry such idolisation so far as to
>copy it in its entirety.
What about someone who wanted to capture American public opinion?
>>Do you admit that Heinlein makes it clear that a truly Libertarian
>>Luna would have been crushed by the FN?
>No.
OK. Please explain you position. In particular, note the bit where
Mike tells the revolutionary cabal that without him they don't have a
chance in Hell. Obviously, Mike is part of the cabal.
>>In that case, how can TMIAHM be promoting Libertarianism?
>How can you see it otherwise?
I can see it otherwise because Heinlein sets up a situation where a
true Libertaria would go down in flames.
Are you claimng that the Loonies could have one without the secret
government? If they could not have won without the secret government,
then how can a book that points out that Libertaria would fail be
interpreted as supporting Libertarianism?
Lee Derbenwick
djd...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
[ "> >" == I wrote: ]
[ in response to my comments about fading prejudices: ]
> Unfortunately, the Poles you mention, the Irish, the Jews, and so on, are
> easier to "assimilate" than blacks. [Long disquisiton on the desirability
> or lack thereof of "assimilation" is here noted but not entered because I
> don't want to bore everyone.] Blacks, unlike Poles, Irish, and Jews, don't
> *look* like white americans after they lose their accents.
I think this will just make it take longer...
But drat! My original post had a long paragraph on why I didn't like
the term _assimilation_ but was using it because it was in the post I
quoted. But that made my post long enough that even I didn't want to
read it, so I edited that paragraph out. :-(
Short-form: Assimilation implies that one group is absorbed into
another. I prefer to think of a merger (maybe a stew-pot rather
than melting-pot analogy), in which useful, interesting, or simply
esthetic aspects of all the cultures involved are kept and can build
on each other. Say, where kinte (sp?) cloth and plaid could both be
part of my heritage (given that I don't qualify to wear either, by
their original rules). Perhaps this is only a token form of
diversity; I don't know. It seems to be the form that has led to
the current American culture, and I think it could do better if it
were more inclusive. Anybody have a word to use for this, given
that it shouldn't have _assimilation_'s connotation?
And I agree with Dan'l that it looks like Heinlein could have been
making a deliberate attempt to encourage the fading of certain
prejudices, but Dan'l went considerably further out on the "intent"
limb than I dared. :-)
Lee Derbenwick, l...@cbnewsm.att.com | I'm sure I parked my opinions
AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ, USA | somewhere around here.
Mark Rosenfelder
Lee Derbenwick <l...@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> wrote:
>In article <markg.752450739@ichips>, ma...@ichips.intel.com (Mark Gonzales) writes:
>> In article <CFzKC...@spss.com> mark...@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>> >... and only an American could be
>> >so hypercritical of the power of government, and so sanguine about
>> >the power of big business.
>>
>> And only an American who has no knowledge of pre-WWII US history.
>
>Well, libertarians have pointed out that the Robber Baron capitalists
>had the government solidly behind them, providing enforcement. So
>the US experience with unfettered capitalism was actually government-
>sponsored capitalism rather than a free market.
Exactly. The government is like an operating system-- essential and
active, but at its best when it's not too intrusive.
The government was providing more than "enforcement", by the way.
It granted land to settlers, established agricultural colleges,
provided a court system, etc. Check out Hernando de Soto's _The Other
Path_ for a portrait of how badly things work when the government
*doesn't* provide (say) legal recognition, enforcement of contracts,
and other "operating system functions".
>In stories
>involving libertarian utopias, all the people seem to be _nice_,
>and totally uninterested in power over others, which makes running
>a society much simpler.
Sure. Nice people could make about any governmental structure work.
Mark Rosenfelder
Joseph Askew <jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
>Dislike of the US and its government are not prejudices in that
>sense. Indeed it is probably very hard to be a Latin American
>intellectual without disliking the US. That is not an unreasonable
>attitude but the logical consequence of their history and position.
>If you don't want people to take against you you shouldn't steal
>their land, overthrow their governments and invade from time to time.
>It is hardly idiocy.
On the whole I agree with your point-- that Prof. de la Paz doesn't
think or act like a Latin American-- but I think the paragraph above
is a bit simplistic. Go read soc.culture.latin-america for awhile
and you'll meet some Latin Americans who, far from disliking the US,
actively idolize it.
Besides, what's a "Latin American intellectual"? An Argentine who's
descended from Italians and looks chiefly to Europe for culture?
A Brazilian of Japanese descent who studied in Pittsburgh?
A Peruvian who attended the heavily Marxist Universidad de San Marcos?
A Chilean at a Catholic university? A Mexican, intimately familiar
with the attractions and excesses of the US? A Puerto Rican born
in New York?
Among all these people you'll find quite a range of attitudes toward
the US, from indifference to hatred to emulation to infuriated fascination.
I think very few, however, would have an opinion as simple as pure
"dislike of the US and its government". "Dislike of the government
but appreciation for the country and its people" would be more like it.
Or better yet, "dislike for certain actions of its government and
businesses".
Mark Rosenfelder
Dan'l DanehyOakes <djd...@PacBell.COM> wrote:
>I would take this one step further: I think that, through his carefully-planted
>and often hard-to-notice "revelations" of character's non-white "status" late in
>several of his books (minimum set: STARSHIP TROOPERS, THE MOON IS. . ., and THE
>CAT WHO. . .), Heinlein was attempting to directly influence and *encourage*
>this "fading."
I'd agree. The questions about the "whiteness" of his characters should be
placed in context; no one was much of a multiculturalist in the time Heinlein
was writing, and saying that race one day wouldn't matter was a very progressive
position at the time.
>Unfortunately, the Poles you mention, the Irish, the Jews, and so on, are
>easier to "assimilate" than blacks. [Long disquisiton on the desirability
>or lack thereof of "assimilation" is here noted but not entered because I
>don't want to bore everyone.] Blacks, unlike Poles, Irish, and Jews, don't
>*look* like white americans after they lose their accents.
I think you've got this backwards. It's not so much that what people see
causes people's prejudices; it's that people's prejudices determine what they see.
A hundred years ago most people probably would have said that Jews *don't*
look like "white americans" after they lose their accents.
As for blacks-- I don't know that we'd even have a monolithic category "blacks"
(or "whites") if there were no race prejudice, any more than we have a
_physical_ category "Jews" today. Are Giancarlo Esposito, Prince, Sinbad, and
Colin Powell "black"? Only if you insist on creating dichotomous categories
and assigning mixed-blood people to one category or the other.
And of course if race prejudice continues to disappear, not only will the
question of how to classify part-black part-white people be increasingly
irrelevant, but more and more such people will exist (as has happened in
Brazil, where interracial marriage has long been accepted).
>The only answer I can give is -- I don't know. Clearly color is *not* an
>absolute barrier; there are at this point many "assimilated" blacks working at
>all levels of government and business.
This should at least be a suggestion that we are dealing less and less with
racism, and more and more with classism.
>But the *average* remains way low. And the barrier, while not absolute, is
>still a very clear reality. The way up involves accepting (or appearing to
>accept) the values -- and the speech manners! -- of the plurality (*not*
>a majority, and it never will be again) of whites.
You don't think the culture (and values and speech manners) of this country
were exclusively built by *whites*, do you? [Long disquisition loaded and
ready, cap'n.]
David Zink
So read ``Anarchaos'', by Donald Westlake, or TRITON by Samuel Delany.
First is a purely Libertarian world, second is a free society where
people have the freedom to have as much or as little government as they
choose--if govs are like operating systems, Triton has a basic-layer
minimal gov, like a micro-kernal operating system, and the more typical
governmental functions are optional on a person by person basis.
-- David
Erich Schneider
Garden_), _The Green Pearl_, and _Madouc_.
--
Erich Schneider er...@bush.cs.tamu.edu
"Even the AI hated [my book]?"
"The AI _loved_ it. That's when we knew for sure that _people_ were going
to hate it."
-Dan Simmons, _Hyperion_
Roy Navarre
been developed extensively over the years.
I see no mention of Fain as an avatar of the Dark Lord! Two of our more
brilliant posters came up with this revelatory insight! :) How can we have
a full page on how Rand parts his hair and nothing on Fain as the DO?
Roy :)
--
David Zink
>In article <2bk1d0$n...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>In article <1993Nov4.0...@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfri...@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>In article <2b6p0h$n...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>So RAH claimed Rico was a Philippino, if he didn't tell you how could
>>you tell?
Talk to a second generation Filpino-American over the phone sometime.
How can you tell they're F-A? I used to have a Polish-American
room-mate, and when he answered the phone, people thought he was black,
because he was from Dearborn.
You're just a simplistic twit who thinks that racial characteristics are
so overwhelming in their formative power that they dominate the
nature-nurture equation. Grow up! Get a sampling of work by James
Tiptree and Samuel Delany, and have them read by people who know
neither. Can they tell which author is White, and which Black? Which
Male and which Female? They've sure fooled enough people before.
Or are you an essentialist, who thinks all Maoris are alike, and
therefore distinguishable from any other group?
As someone recently pointed out, most South Americans have good reason
to take a dim view of the United States, and yet, the more educated they
are, the more likely they are to rationalize it down to `some' actions
of `some' factions of the government of the US and `some' US businesses
(as if our democratic elections and free press excuse the populace from
all blame, rather than making them completely responsible). And
Podkayne's family is certainly an intellectual one; the type most likely
to have present-day opportunities to distract them from ancient wrongs.
Of my three most recent girlfriends, they and I have had ancestors on
opposite sides of dozens of pogroms during the last 120 years. Somehow
we don't waste a lot of time worrying about it. Those were our
*ancestors*! Our arguments are always about things a little closer to
home.
>>My test is the blind taste test. Where you wear a blindfold and
>>try and pick the Classic Coke. If you remove all references to
>>race and colour from I Will Fear No Evil and then had to guess,
>>on first reading, about the origins of the characters do you
>>think that you would have any problems in guessing White American?
At various moments during the past few hundred years, you would have had
no problem distinguishing a Russian Jew from a Spanish Jew from a German
Jew from an Irishman from an Engishman from a Scotsman from a Welshman
from a German from a Frenchman. Yet their descendants are so thoroughly
blended here that most people can't begin to distinguish them.
How many people in this country are so prejudiced that they will insist
on getting in a subway car with a half-dozen rowdy white ghetto kids
instead of one with a half dozen black college professors? (Showing off
the prejudices I have about the behavior of college professors versus
rowdy ghetto kids.) Even that notoriously bigoted black college
professor Jeffries is unlikely to stoop to unprovoked violence. Or at
least have a more rigorous definition of provocation.
Heinlein's firm belief was that once access to economic opportunity
and assimilation allowed minorities to catch up, the old prejudices
would fade. Just like the old prejudices against `mics' and `wops' have
faded once you get away from Hell's Kitchen and Bensonhurst.
And assimilation doesn't mean becoming like a white American. That's
not the way it really works. Look at mathematics--almost completely
dominated by Arabic influence (a few centuries ago) but did they reject
it because it was not European? Of course not. Business culture is
dominated by what works. Behaviors fall into three rough categories:
what works, what fails, and what doesn't matter. While on the one hand,
wild experiments in what doesn't matter are usually discouraged by
social pressure, on the other hand, persistance usually results in an
expansion in what is considered acceptable. As long as you can prove it
still works that way, they will let you do it. There are plenty of
white americans who are not experienced in Business culture--the general
run of blue-collar workers, for example--and their children usually have
a harder time getting ahead in the business world than do the children
of black professionals.
White americans born far from the business culture need to assimilate in
order to become Vice Presidents at major banks.
-- Just a few mad ramblings . . .
Richard Caley
dz> Talk to a second generation Filpino-American over the phone sometime.
dz> How can you tell they're F-A? [...]
dz> You're just a simplistic twit who thinks that racial characteristics are
dz> so overwhelming in their formative power that they dominate the
dz> nature-nurture equation.
Unles I am confused, you are providing arguments for the side of this
argument oposite to that you seem to want to support.
Heinlein's characters, at least in those books I've read which I will
admit is far from all, are American. So, yes, maybe a good way to look
at it is that when he said Filpino, one should take it to mean second
generation Filpino-American, and not be suprised that there is little
beyond that statment to indicate they are anything but stock middle
class American cutouts. This makes the statment that they are, for
instance, Filpino look suspiciously like tokenism.
--
r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Chad C. D'Amour Orzel
Joseph Askew <jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <1993Nov4.0...@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfri...@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <2b6p0h$n...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>
>>>>character is a white American is a major plot point?
>
>>>Nearly all of RAH's books require the main character to be
>>>a white American. They can only make sense if that is assumed
>>>at any rate. Can anyone imagine a RAH book with the hero as an
>>>Islamic Fundamentalist for instance?
>
>>Joe, this is the same kind of bigoted attitude that you showed in your
>>original post (and yes, I do mean bigoted.)
>
>I know I am going to regret asking but bigoted how?
This is probably a mistake on my part, but I'll jump in here against my
better judgement.
Bigoted in that you are treating each specific "race" as a monolithic block,
rather than a collection of individuals sharing certain _physical_ attributes
(skin color being the prime one, at least in the debate that I've read).
While it may be true that there are certain attitudes that are more _likely_
to be held by a certain ethnic group, assuming that either 1) everybody who
holds those attitudes is a member of that ethnic group, or 2) that anybody
who does not hold those attitudes is not _really_ a member of that ethnic
group, despite whatever other defining characteristics they share with the
members of that group is not justified, and comes perilously close to being
racist, as it is currently defined.
To put it another way: If I, as a white male American, were to assert that
only persons holding a certain set of political views were _really_ Americans,
I would be branded a racist and run off this campus faster than this article
will make it to your site. Even if I were to assert that these attitudes were
restriced to White Male Americans, and that, regardless of skin color,sex and
citizenship, anybody disagreeing with these attitudes was not a _real_ WMA, I
would catch Hell.
Applied to any other ethnic group, the same should hold true- Turnabout is
fair play.
While you may be ascribing some positive attitudes to "_real_" Hispanics, or
Islamic Fundamentalists, the statements which have been pointed out as
"bigoted" in this thread are really not different in kind from assertions that
"all Mexican-Americans are illegal immigrants," or "all Poles are stupid."
(please note, before you bust out the napalm, that I am in no way accusing
you of holding such attitudes, or anything like them. I am merely stating that
there is no _qualitative_ difference between "All _real_ Hispanics believe that
Americans are imperialist scum" and "All _real_ Hispanics are gang members and
car thieves." It's a semantic point, not a personal attack)
{ rest of "culture=race" "does not" "does too" argument deleted, along with
most of the MiaHM specifics }
Having strayed pretty far from the r.a.s.w content of this thread (insofar as
any remains) let me jump back and address the original point of the argument.
I will agree with you that Heinlein's characters, at least his heroes, all
seem to be rather similar, and in fact, at least in many of his later books,
seem to be the same character arbitrarily assigned a different name. However,
I would say that this results directly from Heinlein's purpose in writing
many of these books (at least, a purpose beyond "tell a good story" or "make
a few fast bucks"): He was promoting a rather specific set of political and
social ideas (which also come across quite clearly in the non-fiction essays
of his which I have read). As a means of promoting these ideas, all of his
heroes hold this same set of beliefs, and in consequence "sound" very similar
when they are discoursing on politics or morality.
And, among these beliefs was the idea that the race of a person was not in
any way a significant factor in determining their worth, any more than hair
or eye color would be. A person was defined as "good," i.e. "qualified to be
the hero of one of these books," on the basis of their beliefs. To reinforce
this, the race (and in some cases, sex) of the main characters are assigned
pretty randomly.
Again, I will grant that in this set of beliefs are many ideas that are drawn
from American culture. In particular, Heinlein seems very attached to the ideas
of Jefferson and some ideas which would be classed as being "Libertarian."
However, there are some very significant divergences from American culture as
well, particularly Heinlein's constant railing against the broad Puritanical
streak which runs right down the back of American political culture like the
white stripe on a skunk (OK, so there are my views on the same issue...).
To claim, however, that this makes these characters "White Male Americans" is
not justified. They may bear a strong cultural resemblence to Americans, but
they are, in general, a distinct _cultural_ group (culturally Heinleinian?).
This does not say anything about what race they "really" are or are not. All
that matters is their ideas and beliefs, in determining their status as members
of the class of "heroes in Heinlein novels."
{Hey, where'd this soap-box come from? }
Anyway, the above should all be assumed to be IM(NS)HO. I suspect that this
post doesn't actually clear up anything in this argument, as I seem to recall
the same analysis of the books being stated very early on in this whole thread,
and either ignored or dismissed out of hand. But, hope springs eternal...
Again, assume IMHO, and the usual disclaimers about the ultimate unknowability
of the author's intent apply. Having thrown out my 10^3 of net.space, I'll shut
up now.
Later,
OilCan
Paul Ciszek
>and two more I can't remember the name of right now! (useful huh?)
>I *think* they were by Charles DeLint.
Hmmm, _Greenmantle_ and _Moonheart_ might be the ones you were thinking
about.
Lisa S Chabot
>The Devil in a Forest
>I *think* they were by Charles DeLint.
Maybe you mean the novel by Gene Wolfe.
--
It's perfectly phrased and quite as true as any observation
in civilized life should be.
sometimes a Wombat
> If anyone has read any novels/short stories which feature forests and
> have a pagan element or atmosphere in them, then I'd love to hear
> about them!
>
> Books I've read so far are;
>
> The Devil in a Forest
by Gene Wolfe
> Mythago Wood
> Lavondys
> The Bone Forest
all by Robert Holdstock. Word is a new one Mythago book is coming out
RSN.
And you are exactly looking for RUMORS OF SPRING by Richard Grant.
Larry "Really" Hammer
--
\ Body and spirit are twins: God only knows which
L...@physics.arizona.edu \ is which; / The soul squats down in the flesh
GEnie: LARRY.HAMMER \ like a tinker drunk in a ditch. -- Swinburne
Joseph Askew
>In article <2bk08c$n...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>and the fact that he is called
>>"Stinky" ought to tell you something.
>What? Are you suggesting that "Stinky" is derogatory?
No I am saying it is an Americanism.
>>It did not get implemented as they BOTH wanted. So one of the main
>>characters - supposedly a Latin American - gets *all* his political
>>attitudes from a dead Anglo.
>I think this is an appalling misreading of the book. Prof gets his
>political attitudes from himself. He recognizes that Jefferson had
>some similar attitudes and that the Constitution that Jefferson wrote
>could be used to produce a nation that Prof would like.
Noone gets their attitudes from their self. They get them from
the larger group. You are taught your attitudes as you grow up.
Some of them you may reject, some you may pick up elsewhere, but
it is very rare for people to have an entire political philosophy
worked out all by yourself.
>>Not a word about Bolivar or Peron or anyone else from outside the US.
>Why should there be?
Because if you are a Latino you usually learn to think of Bolivar
the same way Americans think of Washington. Look at the fuss over
the novel written about him last year. His life, philosophy and
attitudes would have been (as they are) present in any discussion
the Professor had about politics when he was growing up. See how
long an American can discuss politics without mentioning the Founding
Fathers or the Constitution.
>Bolivar was a revolutionary and a Latin American
>nationalist. The revolutionary bit was done better by Lenin, Mao,
>Giap, and Che Guevera.
Each to his own I guess.
>The Latin American nationalist part is
>irrelevant to Luna.
But of course the American Rational Anarchist part is not?
>Similar arguments apply to Peron. Peron ruled
>with a cult of personality. Peronism without Peron, or at least his
>memory, is kind of pointless.
The present government of Argentina would probably disagree.
>>Notice that the Professor did not
>>even update the language of the Declaration of Independence. Well,
>>at least the horrid "inalienable" bit anyway.
>Of course not. He was laying on the symbolism as thick as he could.
For whom? "he" as in RAH perhaps.
>>You mean he insisted that the Government get out of the way of
>>private industry in developing the catapult? An entirely common
>>libertarian attitude.
>Yup. Except he pitched the catapult to countries and it was pretty
>clear that it was the countries he needed to convince.
Only for permission and eminent domain. Notice that the African
one was built before the Chinese one. I assume that is a reference
to a totally private enterprise beating one with some government
involvement but I could be wrong. It is not spelt out.
>>His faith is in technology developing not
>>in government. They did not have the catapult because of the Lunar
>>Authority not because the governments of the Earth had to be convinced.
>Wrong. They did not have the catapult because it was not needed by
>anyone who was willing to pay for it. In fact, the absence of the
>catapult was a classic free market failure.
They needed government and specifically the Authority to
get out of the way of private industry. If you have a page
reference otherwise I'm happy to discuss it.
Joseph Askew
--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu Remote in thorny deserts, feel the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.
Joseph Askew
>>Alright I'll accept that. RAH does list it first but I don't suppose
>>that means much. Anyway back to my original point - Independence Day
>>is fixed to make it the Four of July. Why?
> If memory serves, they also managed in some way to make May 5th a
>significant date while they were visiting nations where that's a date
>with heavy associations.
In Mexico.
>I think they idea was to create a connection
>in the minds of the Terran nationals between Luna's independence and
>that of whichever nation they found themselves in.
They lied about events in Mexico, they falsified the events on
the Moon. They *told* the Mexicans they fought in May, they faked
their Declaration of Independence to make it July 4th. Big difference.
> Rene Levesque, who was leader of the pro-separation Parti
>Quebecois in Canada, used to try to compare Quebec leaving Canada
>to the 13 Colonies revolting when drumming up support in the USA
>[The USAmericans tended to think instead of the CSA splitting away
>in the 1960s]. Despite using that tactic, I think one can say a
>Rene Levesque was not a USAmerican.
Of course he is just trying to use an analogy Americans south
of the border will understand. Different situation. Now if he
goes ahead and fakes the date for Independence (any day now I
hear) so that it is the same as the US or even France, let me
know. That is the correct analogy.
Joseph Askew
>In article <2bmhi6$g...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>Silly? I think not. All of his claims are true:
>
>1) "The British have a long history of meddling in US politics and
> economy...". Naturally. Even after independence, the British
> Empire continued to be the dominant trading partner of the new
> country.
No doubt. This is not meddling.
> During the War of 1812, there was a strong pro-British,
> anti-war sentiment in New England due to the extensive trading ties
> that region had with Britain; some New England states even groused
> about seceding from the Union.
No British meddling here just some Americans who want to protect
their own businesses. Did the British *pay* them to do this?
> influence during the Civil War era. And all through the 19th and
> early 20th centuries, Britain provided a large chunk of the capital
> used to develop the US into a major industrial power, with
> concomitant political interest and influence.
Again no meddling. Did they bring down a President? Did they form
policy in Washington? Did they interfere in politics *at*all*in*
any*form*? So where was their meddling?
>2) "... (fear of) their political influence was one of the major
> factors in precipitating the US Civil War". The issue of tariffs
> and foreign trade (chiefly with Britain) was indeed one of the
> major motivations for secession by southern states. (Another big
> one was the issue of the extension of slavery into the territories,
> of course.)
And the British encouraged them? Paid them? Gave them guns? Where
is the interferences previously claimed? Tariffs were and are a
domestic problem, if you have any evidence the British actually
meddled in this debate please post it.
> The CSA assiduously courted Britain for most of the
> war; the thought was that "King Cotton" (the region's chief crop)
> was so important to Britain's economy (remember all those textile
> mills?) that Britain would recognize and aid the Confederacy.
And so? Did the British aid or even recognise the Confederacy? And
I thought they had been meddling since Independence....
> Ultimately, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (in which the Union
> first advanced the abolition of slavery, not just preservation of
> the Union, as a goal of the war) helped turn the tide of British
> opinion against the Confederacy.
Did the British help the Union then? Where is the meddling as claimed?
> in the US." Yup. I believe they're still number 1, in fact --
> Japan recently reached second place, but I don't think it has yet
> passed the UK.
I don't dispute this part.
Joseph Askew
>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>In our history convicts worked in chain gnags or were leased out
>>to free or freed settlers. Only in America were they essentially
>>let go as, it would appear, they mostly were in tMiaHM. Also of
>>course we had a large military presence.
>Also, of course, letting somebody go in America (where there is plenty of
>food, water and oxygen) is much different than letting them go on the Moon
>(where none of these things exist unless you pay for the). TANSTAAFL.
Which is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
>>But no chain gang. No Port Arthur.
>Define chain gang in such a way as to exclude my example.
Which example was that?
>>>Discipline Sites: No farther than the nearest airlock.
>>Official murders? Where were they mentioned?
>Are you asking if there were official murders on the Moon? Read the
>"Judge Brody" section of the book.
So I did. Was he appointed by the government? Was he a civilian?
A murder perhaps but hardly official.
>>Not exactly. RAH decided to call him non-White for some reason
>>I do not know. Whether or not it is justifiable to call him so
>>is another question.
>If someone's skin is not white then that person is not white. Simple
>logic. If a person's skin is not white they may be of _any_ culture.
A Black and White Minstrel does not have a White skin. They are
all blacked up. Not that this is the issue, the point being that
RAH's characters are Americans, they are not minorities, they are
not foreigners of any sort.
>Again, simple logic (with one hidden assumption: A culture is something
>you grow up in.) RAH never names the culture from which Mannie came. He
>does name the skin color (or at least says it is not white.) Using the
>above premises we can conclude the following: Mannie is not white.
>Mannie's culture is unknown.
MO'KD culture *is* known - he is an American whether RAH said so
or not. As for his skin colour, it is not important to the story,
it is not indicated by anything other than RAH claim, it is not
pertinent.
>The truth often is. Again, given that fact that culture is something you
>grow up in, we see that Mannie _cannot_ be from any other culture.
I thought you just said his culture was unknown? No don't start.
>>>Of course, I forgot. Culture = Race. If a man's eyes have epicanthic
>>>folds he must have a long memory of civil wars and rebellions.
>>Now you are being silly. People are Chinese by culture not by race.
>Why are you supposing that this man is Chinese by culture?
Which man? We were talking about those from HKL who were *claimed*
to be Chinese.
Joseph Askew
>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>Because I have read other things he has written and best of all I
>>have read those philosophers he plagarised from.
>If the D of I is plagarised from other works, than what is to say the Prof
>didn't get his ideas from those works?
Indeed. Does this help your point in any way? Or does it make it
worse? An American might think of Jefferson as the First Rational
Anarchist. A foreigner is more likely to have heard of those who
came first. Why Jefferson over Locke?
>Possibly J. was the only man who held this entire
>collection of ideas. Or possibly RAH felt that J. was someone the readers
>could relate to more easily than, say, Locke.
More than likely.
>>Perhaps not. It still does not change the fact that he was not
>>British but a Virginian. He did not consider himself British
>>(Or do you have a quotation where he does?) nor did the British
>>(and I have a couple from Samuel Johnson)
>Ok. From now on I declare myself Australian. I'm sure I can get one of
>your fellow countrymen to agree with me. Am I Australian by culture, now?
>No, I suspect it is not that easy. I think that I am still culturally
>American.
(a) You are missing the point. *I* do not consider you as an Australian.
The rest of Australia probably doesn't either. Neither does the rest of
the United States as far as I know. Jefferson was NOT considered a Brit
by himself, by the rest of America's population, by the English and by
everyone I know of since except you. How can you say he was?
(b) You are making my point for me. I think you are still culturally
American. Oddly enough you seem to think it enough for RAH to make
a similar claim and get away with it. If RAH was still alive and said
*you* were an Australian would you be? Let you think that when he says
the Professor is a Latino he is.
>>>Which was intended only to throw rocks. No trade going on there.
>>The ones of the Earth.
>Ok. The ones of Earth. Mannie and Prof are shown (in the book)
>specifically talking to only about 4 people about the wonders that the
>catapult would bring. The most extensive by far, was the Chinese
>gentleman--who was in the gov't. The only businessmen they talked to were
>being persuaded that there was money to be made on the Moon and thus were
>to vote with Luna.
They had a private group in Luna prepared to back the catapult
which they mentioned to the Chinese. What they needed was the
permission to build and perhaps eminent domain. Strangely enough
the African catapult - not a hint of government participation -
was specifically mentioned as being built first.
>>The Authority was not a business but an arm of the FN. The Authority
>>was a government organisation chartered by the FN and under its control.
>Authority was a business. This is extremely clear.
Not to me. Page references. Since when are the two incompatible anyway?
If you have evidence of the Authority being a private company let see it.
>To what extent they
>were under the control of the FN is a little hazy. From references to
>their relationship (eg. Authority existed before FN did) it would appear
>that Authority wields more control than the FN.
Really? More page numbers then. Yet when the FN backs down the
Authority has to too. Odd that for a more influencial body.
>>That's what growing up is all about. You are taught things. Attitudes
>>too. Quoting Jefferson Davis is a good example. Only a Southerner of
>>a particular sort would sensibly do so.
>When and where did Jefferson (Thomas, that is) grow up? What culture was
>he exposed to?
In Virginia. In the eighteenth century. American colonial.
>>No. Wyoh was a female character. We agree on that I assume. If you
>>remove all the explicit references to her gender you can still tell
>>that she is a woman. It is a integral part of the story, though maybe
>>not a major part. If you removed all the "Sen~or"s and "Amigo"s and
>>changed the name slightly any reasonable person, if asked to guess,
>>would assume the Professor was a MidWestern Maths teacher as I bet
>>the person the character is based on was.
>How can I tell she is a woman? I'm looking for specific examples, here.
Surrogate mother? The reason she hated the Authority. Bundling. Marriage.
Persuasion of Greg (perhaps he was gay.) The Profs behaviour. What more
do you want?
>>Don't you think it a little odd that a supposedly Latino thinks that
>>the works and writings of a dead Virginian are more important than
>>his own history? So much so that his own history is totally excluded?
>But you said before that this dead Virginian got his ideas from somebody
>else, didn't you?
But he does not quote them. He has not even heard of them otherwise
he would not call TJ the first RA.
>>They had a military of sorts. Whether the Prof intended it to be
>>permanent I can't say. He died before he could do anything. Odd
>>that he does not once mention even the possibility.
>Inasmuch as there are no taxes on Luna, they would have a hard time
>supporting a standing army.
Insomuch as they did have taxes they would not have had any problem.
>>>Corruption yes, but how do you guard against it?
>>I do not know I am not a Latino.
>Only Latinos know how to guard against corruption. Or are you saying that
>you don't know how _Prof_ would have handled it? Either way, my point was
>that guarding against corruption is well nigh unto impossible.
Not exactly. But Latinos probably spend some time thinking about it.
You and I and nearly everyone else here probably spend no time at all.
The problem would not appear in a Constitution that *I* might write
because it is not a problem I face.
>Why wouldn't he expect it to last out the decade? He can see America from
>where he is, and he knows it worked (fairly well, anyway) here.
For reasons associated with American culture that, of course, is
different from that on the Moon (isn't that what you have been
claiming lately?)
>>O.K. You want to be picky (over what I have no idea) He *called*
>>him an Hispanic. More like a Black and White Minstrel.
>He created a character. He claimed that this character is Hispanic.
>Therefore this character, however much his acts conflict with what you
>consider Hispanic, is Hispanic.
I am an American. I say so. Therefore I am. Same "logic".
Joseph Askew
>>>opinion), so the Prof wants to influence US public opinion in order to
>>>gain recognition for the Luna republic. Why would this be unusual or
>>>surprising?
>>RAH does not say so that I know of. Care to cite a page? He does say
>>afterward that it was a propaganda bonus but that is different.
>Huh? You ask why he deliberately engineered events to take place on
>the magic date, and you admit that he later disclosed his ulterior
>motives (the propaganda benefits) for doing so. Sounds to me like he
>was out to influence US opinion the whole time (who else would July 4th
>propaganda have any effect on?). Or are you saying that the date was a
>mere coincidence?
No I don't do any such thing. I wish you would stick to what I
actually do say. I said *afterwards* there was a propaganda benefit.
There was NO sign at the time that this was the reason the date was
chosen. It was nice that it turned out that way I know of NO evidence
that it was chosen for that purpose. Can I be any clearer? The date
was NOT mere coincidence but I think reflected RAH own prejudices.
>> Why is it unusual? It involves direct falsification of a nations
>> history. Not the sort of thing people take lying down.
>I'm not sure what direct falsification of history you're talking about
>here. Please elaborate.
Because July Fourth was NOT the day, it happened TWO days earlier
but the Prof fixed the date.
>>If I might be permitted a minor spelling point it's Tian1 (Heaven)
>>An1 (Peace) Men2 (Gate).
>Yeah, and the possessive of "nation" is "nation's", not "nations".
Thank you.
>> That is different for various reasons, the
>>best being that was pure propaganda and the US is the *only* power
>>left. In RAH book this is not the case.
>Now wait, you yourself stated above that it was a "propaganda bonus"
>for Luna.
Yep.
>And I hardly agree with you that the US is the "only power
>left" in today's world -- only *superpower* maybe, though some dispute
>even that, and see the US as merely the stongest pole in a multi-polar
>world where other poles are catching up. That latter description
>sounds a lot like the situation in the book.
The situations were different. The US is the only power of any note
at the moment. That was not the case in tMiaHM
Joseph Askew
>In article <2bk1d0$n...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>Joe, this is the same kind of bigoted attitude that you showed in your
>>>original post (and yes, I do mean bigoted.)
>>I know I am going to regret asking but bigoted how?
>Bigoted because you assume that White American and fundamentalist
>Moslem or mutually exclusive.
For all intents and purposes they are. That is not quite as bad
as it sounds as the numbers of Anglo Islamic Fundamentalist is
probably very very close to the margin of error in any census.
>>There are *some* perhaps but very few. Could you name six? To be
>>an IF requires attitudes it is very hard to reconcile with most
>>American cultural norms.
>Nope. I only know one. I'm not sure what that proves - I also only
>know one Puerto Rican, but I think you would have a hard time proving
>that there aren't plenty of Puerto Rican Americans.
Well I know *of* one. At the ANU in Canberra who posts sometimes.
There is one, maybe two, from America who post on the net but I
would hardly say they are significant and it *is* a fair assumption
to ignore them. There are plenty of Puerto Rican Americans. I don't
know any but I do know that they have one end of Madison Avenue.
(I wonder if that will get flamed for prejudice?)
>Anyway, could you please tell us what American cultural norms are hard
>to reconcile with being a fundamentalist Moslem?
I would assume that Freedom of Speech is an American cultural
norm. I have never met an American who was not in favour of it
subject to one or two minor restrictions at most. Islam calls
for certain punishments for certain forms of free speech and I
don't know of any Islamic country that enshrines it in their
Constitution in any meaningful way (or at all actually) How
many examples do you want?
>Just out of
>curiosity, how do the dozens of Chinese, Japanese, and
>Indian-Americans that I know meet these norms?
Don't know. I expect so mostly.
>>It is worse than that because almost none of them epxress an opinion
>>that is not found in Middle America or hold a position that is not
>>in the mainstream American lexicon.
>I see. So, in Middle America and the mainstream American lexicon we
>can find ample support for miscegnation,
Yep.
>incest,
Such as?
>various forms of
>polygamy being superior to monogamy,
Not entirely unknown in Middle America.
>excution for being rude to women,
Not uncommon in the past. Probably some support today.
Go into a bar and make a reference to someones mother.
>TANSTAAFL,
Way of life.
>beating cops to death,
You mean killing oppressive occupying soldiery? Not what I
would call unknown in Americas past is it?
>bombing Middle-America,
Attacking aggressors and occupiers. Le May got a lot of medals.
>free love,
If you pick the right Middle America. And I am not so sure
that RAH was in favour of this so much as opposed to laws
against it which is another matter altogether.
>heretical churches like the Fosterites, and pan-Deism? Could you
>please give me directions to this part of Middle America?
I don't think he particularly likes these churches but it is
not hard to find Churches who believe these sort of things in
Middle America. Salt Lake City for instance. Pan-Deism I have
to admit he worked on himself.
>>Again fine. Except I claim that these characters *are* White Americans
>>only he decided to change their colour for some reason unknowable at
>>the moment.
>Can you explain why you think these people are White Americans? I
>mean, apparently, if Podkayne spent half her time fulminating about
>how badly Maoris were treated you would consider her to be an
>authentic Maori. OK. Now, what does she do that makes her White
>American?
A neat example. Should have noticed that one slipped in there.
>You seem to be assuming that if someone doesn't have
>characteristics that mark him/her as being a member of some particular
>minority that the default assumption is that they are a White American.
I assume that if someone has the characteristics that mark him/her
as being an American, a stated claim to the contrary is not convincing.
>>So RAH claimed Rico was a Philippino, if he didn't tell you how could
>>you tell?
>Shrug. You probably couldn't. How would you expect to be able to
>tell?
There is such a thing a culture and Philippinos have one.
>There was a girl called Cheryl Casquejo in my suite in college.
>She was Filipino. I don't think I could have told if it wasn't for
>the fact that she was a little bit dark to be Chinese, she had a
>Spanish name, and she told me she was Filipino when I asked.
You mean you knew an Asian with a Spanish name and did not assume
she was a Philippino? You might have been wrong but that surely
was a perfectly normal assumption.
>I would not be at all surprised if Maoris who live in New Zealand have
>strong feelings about the past. Podkayne, of course, is not a New
>Zealander.
Fine.
>In much the same way, I rarely think about the Holocaust,
You might if people wrote in history books what heros the SS were.
Maybe not. I probably would I must say.
>and the only times I refer to it are when I tell people that I'm
>damned if I'll give up my right to own a gun
I suppose if I said this was an American cultural norm I would
get flamed right? It isn't an argument you see a lot of others
make.
>I see no reason why a Maori a few
>hundred years in the future who lives on a different planet should not
>feel similarly.
Perhaps not.
>>My test is the blind taste test. Where you wear a blindfold and
>>try and pick the Classic Coke. If you remove all references to
>>race and colour from I Will Fear No Evil and then had to guess,
>>on first reading, about the origins of the characters do you
>>think that you would have any problems in guessing White American?
>Well, it would depend on whether I could use the rule "Most authors
>write about White Americans, so if you don't have any clues about what
>race someone is, guessing White American is your best bet."
Well most *American* writers write about White Americans. Males too.
Have you tried it with a Soviet author? Even Clarke, to me, leaves
a distinct British feel to much of his work. Especially the earlier
stuff.
>>They had the technology, they had it for a long time. What they
>>also had was a short sighted blinkered Authority which would or
>>could not see their best interests. It was freedom FROM government
>>that was the essential condition for the catapult.
>Excuse me again, but it is never suggested that a catapult is in
>Authority's best interest. After all, it isn't any skin of their
>backs if a bunch of convicts starve, and an Earth catapult is going to
>be EXPENSIVE.
Their is in Loonies. Ambiguous I admit.
It is still a question of removing government control not adding it.
>>Is it? It is made clear they *want* organics ton for ton.
>More than that, it is made clear that they won't ship organics to
>Earth unless they get them back ton for ton. That was the whole
>reason for the revolution.
For the Prof, Wyoh and Manuel perhaps but they hardly discuss it
much in public I seem to remember.
>Joseph, get out your copy of the book. It's right there where they
>discuss strategy. It's also brought up when they discuss the climax
>where the Lunar catapult gets destroyed - they deliberately allowed it
>to be destroyed so that there wouldn't be pressure to ship food before
>the Earth catapult was ready.
No it occurs to MO'KD afterwards that the Professors plan entailed
the destruction of the catapult. Hardly strategy for the rest of them.
Not government control either. They do continue to buy wheat with
Authority script it is true but they also needed gunners.
>Joseph, think about it. If part of the price of food deliveries to
>Earth is an organics delivery to Luna then there are two
>possibilities...
>
>1. The food is worth enough to Earth that they will pay this price.
>In that case, no subsidy is needed.
Yep. Free Market solution.
>2. The food is not worth enough to Earth that they will pay this
>price. In that case, Earth is obviously not going to subsidise the
>return shipments, and Luna obviously doesn't have the money.
>
>Either way, subsidies are a non-issue.
Thus the governments do not get involved, the market sorts it out.
Either way.
>>Copied by who else? Only by Americans as far as I remember. From Locke.
>>By Jefferson. Still the Professors entire world view is based on the
>>ideas and philosophies of Jefferson et al. The whoel book is a comment
>>on the US experience.
>Actually, if you take a look, I think that you will find that a lot of
>countries cribbed from the D of I. For example, the French took the
>beginning of the US D of I and changed "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
>of Happiness" to "Liberty, Equality, and Brotherhood."
Did they? I think millions of Frenchmen would strongly disagree. The
two don't even look the same, how can you assume that one? I also
believe the French slogan predates the Revolution but I do not know
by how long. Any other examples?
>>An authentic American could not help but give a nod in the direction
>>of the US experience. It is part of what makes us what we are. RAH
>>gives a little more than a nod though.
>Nonsense. The only "nod" that he gives to the American experience is
>the use of the Declaration of Independence.
Congress? Rational Anarchism? Avoiding entangling alliances? Brass
cannons (I assume that is American I could be wrong)? What is not
American and also not invented? What part comes from elsewhere on
Earth?
>Of course, by your rules,
>the Chinese students in Tianneman Square were Americans because they
>built that Goddess of Democracy statue.
If you read their slogans you would have noticed they were
firmly within Chinese tradition. Complaints about the state
as a monolithic body, bureaucracy, lack of pluralism, one
party state - the objections to these were couched in the
traditional terminology and philosophy. Find an American who
objects to a Monolithic State.
>>I think a Hispanic would not have copied the Declaration of
>>Independence, no. He might have written a new one based on it
>>but only an American would carry such idolisation so far as to
>>copy it in its entirety.
>What about someone who wanted to capture American public opinion?
He would have said so. Or alternatively he might have thought
of a reason why this should be necessary or required.
>>>Do you admit that Heinlein makes it clear that a truly Libertarian
>>>Luna would have been crushed by the FN?
>>No.
>OK. Please explain you position. In particular, note the bit where
>Mike tells the revolutionary cabal that without him they don't have a
>chance in Hell. Obviously, Mike is part of the cabal.
Obviously. The Professor goes on quite a lot about the actions
individuals must take, but on whom the responsibility falls.
Clearly Revolution, like stealing the funds, is an example of
this. The Prof, (and Libertarians by extension) did (and do) not
approve of theft, however this was an action that was justified
by the circumstances. Similarly the Professor can be a Libertarian
while running a secret, heirarchical and disciplined revolutionary
group. A bit of a relativist, old RAH.
>>How can you see it otherwise?
>I can see it otherwise because Heinlein sets up a situation where a
>true Libertaria would go down in flames.
Perhaps this is so. I do not quite see it that way. Odd that
the libertarians on the net often recommend this book isn't it?
>Are you claimng that the Loonies could have one without the secret
>government?
What secret government? The secret Revolutionary group perhaps but
this does not conflict with either the concept of lesser evil nor
with contempt for mass opinion. Neither uncommon in RAH's thought
or that of the Founding Fathers or modern Libertarians.
Joseph Askew
>In article <1993Nov9.2...@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfri...@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>So RAH claimed Rico was a Philippino, if he didn't tell you how could
>>>you tell?
>Talk to a second generation Filpino-American over the phone sometime.
>How can you tell they're F-A? I used to have a Polish-American
>room-mate, and when he answered the phone, people thought he was black,
>because he was from Dearborn.
Then they are Americans not Philippinos. Second generation and all
that. Still it might take longer but are you telling me that noone
could possibly tell? Even if the discussion was about, say, police
law enforcement in LA or quotas on disadvantaged students? or any
one of a dozen topics in which even a second generation Philippino
is likely (not assured only likely) to have a differing opinion to
that of the mainstream?
>You're just a simplistic twit who thinks that racial characteristics are
>so overwhelming in their formative power that they dominate the
>nature-nurture equation. Grow up!
Ahh I see someone else has the old RAH-fan manual out. Exactly where
I have I *once* said there is such a thing as racial characteristics?
Exactly where have I even said there is a direct causal link between
race and culture? Throwing abuse is both childish and pathetic. Do
better next time.
>Or are you an essentialist, who thinks all Maoris are alike, and
>therefore distinguishable from any other group?
Ahh so you didn't even bother to work out my opnion before chosing
the cheap option and flaming. Neat. Do they teach that in America
or did you learn it all by yourself?
>As someone recently pointed out, most South Americans have good reason
>to take a dim view of the United States,
That was indeed me. Nice to see you are keeping up and informed
before opting to flame.
>Of my three most recent girlfriends, they and I have had ancestors on
>opposite sides of dozens of pogroms during the last 120 years.
How nice. Did you stop to ask what my SO is doing in this country?
No of course not. Not when you can flame instead.
>>>My test is the blind taste test. Where you wear a blindfold and
>>>try and pick the Classic Coke. If you remove all references to
>>>race and colour from I Will Fear No Evil and then had to guess,
>>>on first reading, about the origins of the characters do you
>>>think that you would have any problems in guessing White American?
>At various moments during the past few hundred years, you would have had
>no problem distinguishing a Russian Jew from a Spanish Jew from a German
>Jew from an Irishman from an Engishman from a Scotsman from a Welshman
>from a German from a Frenchman. Yet their descendants are so thoroughly
>blended here that most people can't begin to distinguish them.
They have all become Americans. So what? This affects my argument?
I don't think so. Can you still tell an Englishman from an Irishman?
Don't know about you but I can.
>How many people in this country are so prejudiced that they will insist
>on getting in a subway car with a half-dozen rowdy white ghetto kids
>instead of one with a half dozen black college professors?
I have no idea. Do I care? Not much. Is this relevant? I think not.
Did you bother to understand before flaming? Didn't think so.
>Heinlein's firm belief was that once access to economic opportunity
>and assimilation allowed minorities to catch up, the old prejudices
>would fade. Just like the old prejudices against `mics' and `wops' have
>faded once you get away from Hell's Kitchen and Bensonhurst.
That is nice. Have I said otherwise? Is this not integral to
my argument? Have you understood before flaming?
>And assimilation doesn't mean becoming like a white American. That's
>not the way it really works.
Yes it is. Show me an assimilated Black who still speaks Gullah.
>Look at mathematics--almost completely
>dominated by Arabic influence (a few centuries ago) but did they reject
>it because it was not European?
Nice to know mathematics was dominated by Arabs. Nothing to do
with dead Greeks of course.
>Business culture is
>dominated by what works.
That's nice for you.
>Behaviors fall into three rough categories:
>what works, what fails, and what doesn't matter.
A lecture on behaviour. My lucky day. Relevance?
>White americans born far from the business culture need to assimilate in
>order to become Vice Presidents at major banks.
That is nice too.
Did any part of this post have the slightest relevance to a word
that I have said once over the last week or so? Was this a total
waste of my time? Now you have flamed me for some imagined idea
of what I think do you feel better? Am I to expect this every
week or only on special occassions?
Michael Friedman
>In article <1993Nov9.2...@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfri...@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <2bk1d0$n...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>>Joe, this is the same kind of bigoted attitude that you showed in your
>>>>original post (and yes, I do mean bigoted.)
>>>I know I am going to regret asking but bigoted how?
>>Bigoted because you assume that White American and fundamentalist
>>Moslem or mutually exclusive.
>For all intents and purposes they are. That is not quite as bad
>as it sounds as the numbers of Anglo Islamic Fundamentalist is
>probably very very close to the margin of error in any census.
Joseph, are you claiming that to be an authentice American you need to
be Anglo? If that is so then by your definitions I'm not an American.
>>>There are *some* perhaps but very few. Could you name six? To be
>>>an IF requires attitudes it is very hard to reconcile with most
>>>American cultural norms.
>>Nope. I only know one. I'm not sure what that proves - I also only
>>know one Puerto Rican, but I think you would have a hard time proving
>>that there aren't plenty of Puerto Rican Americans.
>>Anyway, could you please tell us what American cultural norms are hard
>>to reconcile with being a fundamentalist Moslem?
>I would assume that Freedom of Speech is an American cultural
>norm. I have never met an American who was not in favour of it
>subject to one or two minor restrictions at most. Islam calls
>for certain punishments for certain forms of free speech and I
>don't know of any Islamic country that enshrines it in their
>Constitution in any meaningful way (or at all actually) How
>many examples do you want?
Joseph, you've obviously never visited the Bible Belt. There are
plenty of places in the US where they would happily jail people for
blasphemy if they could get away with it. I'll admit that they
usually don't advocate the death penalty for blasphemy, but I think
that's a minor difference.
Could you try another example, please?
>>Just out of
>>curiosity, how do the dozens of Chinese, Japanese, and
>>Indian-Americans that I know meet these norms?
>Don't know. I expect so mostly.
Why? What makes you think that Chinese, Japanese, and
Indian-Americans have any more respect for free speech that offends
them than religious Moslem Americans?
>>>It is worse than that because almost none of them epxress an opinion
>>>that is not found in Middle America or hold a position that is not
>>>in the mainstream American lexicon.
>>I see. So, in Middle America and the mainstream American lexicon we
>>can find ample support for miscegnation,
>Yep.
>>incest,
>Such as?
In half of his books. Also, technically, Ludmilla in TMIAHM.
>>various forms of
>>polygamy being superior to monogamy,
>Not entirely unknown in Middle America.
No, but hardly a cultural norm. Even the Mormons forbid it.
>>excution for being rude to women,
>Not uncommon in the past. Probably some support today.
>Go into a bar and make a reference to someones mother.
Better, call the waitress a bitch. You won't get killed unless it's a
really rough place.
>>TANSTAAFL,
>Way of life.
I wish. Half of America thinks that government spending comes from heaven.
>>beating cops to death,
>You mean killing oppressive occupying soldiery? Not what I
>would call unknown in Americas past is it?
Nope, but we didn't kill POWs.
>>free love,
>If you pick the right Middle America.
Well, if you pick the right Middle America, what CAN'T you find
support for?
>>heretical churches like the Fosterites, and pan-Deism? Could you
>>please give me directions to this part of Middle America?
>I don't think he particularly likes these churches but it is
>not hard to find Churches who believe these sort of things in
>Middle America. Salt Lake City for instance.
I don't think the Mormons compare with the Fosterites. Now, David
Khoresh did, but you saw what the US did to him.
>>>Again fine. Except I claim that these characters *are* White Americans
>>>only he decided to change their colour for some reason unknowable at
>>>the moment.
>>Can you explain why you think these people are White Americans? I
>>mean, apparently, if Podkayne spent half her time fulminating about
>>how badly Maoris were treated you would consider her to be an
>>authentic Maori. OK. Now, what does she do that makes her White
>>American?
>A neat example. Should have noticed that one slipped in there.
>>You seem to be assuming that if someone doesn't have
>>characteristics that mark him/her as being a member of some particular
>>minority that the default assumption is that they are a White American.
>I assume that if someone has the characteristics that mark him/her
>as being an American, a stated claim to the contrary is not convincing.
But you have never given us a convincing description of the
characteristics that mark people as Americans.
>>>So RAH claimed Rico was a Philippino, if he didn't tell you how could
>>>you tell?
>>Shrug. You probably couldn't. How would you expect to be able to
>>tell?
>There is such a thing a culture and Philippinos have one.
So? There is such a thing as Eastern European Jewish culture. I know
virtually nothing about it. Why should Rico know any more about
Fillippino culture?
>>There was a girl called Cheryl Casquejo in my suite in college.
>>She was Filipino. I don't think I could have told if it wasn't for
>>the fact that she was a little bit dark to be Chinese, she had a
>>Spanish name, and she told me she was Filipino when I asked.
>You mean you knew an Asian with a Spanish name and did not assume
>she was a Philippino? You might have been wrong but that surely
>was a perfectly normal assumption.
1. There aren't many Filippinos in New York, so I wasn't used to
that, and
2. We also have Asian-Hispanic mixes. If the daddy is the Hispanic
the child will have a Hispanic name.
3. Answer the argument. This girl was culturally assimmilated. She
was also a pure-blood Filippino. If Heinlein wrote about her,
wouldn't you be claiming that she wasn't a real Filippino?
>>I would not be at all surprised if Maoris who live in New Zealand have
>>strong feelings about the past. Podkayne, of course, is not a New
>>Zealander.
>Fine.
>>In much the same way, I rarely think about the Holocaust,
>You might if people wrote in history books what heros the SS were.
>Maybe not. I probably would I must say.
OK. Then I rarely think about the general Eastern European
persecution of the Jews coing back a good 1000 years, and that's
despite the fact that many of the people who did that kind of thing
are described in the history books as heroes. (i.e. the Crusaders).
>>and the only times I refer to it are when I tell people that I'm
>>damned if I'll give up my right to own a gun
>I suppose if I said this was an American cultural norm I would
>get flamed right? It isn't an argument you see a lot of others
>make.
Well, you can argue that it's an American cultural norm if you want,
but given that polls show that it is a minority view I don't see how
you could justify your argument.
>>I see no reason why a Maori a few
>>hundred years in the future who lives on a different planet should not
>>feel similarly.
>Perhaps not.
>>>My test is the blind taste test. Where you wear a blindfold and
>>>try and pick the Classic Coke. If you remove all references to
>>>race and colour from I Will Fear No Evil and then had to guess,
>>>on first reading, about the origins of the characters do you
>>>think that you would have any problems in guessing White American?
>>Well, it would depend on whether I could use the rule "Most authors
>>write about White Americans, so if you don't have any clues about what
>>race someone is, guessing White American is your best bet."
>Well most *American* writers write about White Americans. Males too.
>Have you tried it with a Soviet author? Even Clarke, to me, leaves
>a distinct British feel to much of his work. Especially the earlier
>stuff.
Yes, but we are talking about one American writer who made a point of
often not writing about Americans.
>>>They had the technology, they had it for a long time. What they
>>>also had was a short sighted blinkered Authority which would or
>>>could not see their best interests. It was freedom FROM government
>>>that was the essential condition for the catapult.
>>Excuse me again, but it is never suggested that a catapult is in
>>Authority's best interest. After all, it isn't any skin of their
>>backs if a bunch of convicts starve, and an Earth catapult is going to
>>be EXPENSIVE.
>Their is in Loonies. Ambiguous I admit.
Well, why would you expect the Authority to do something that was not
in their best interest whether it is a government or a private entity?
>It is still a question of removing government control not adding it.
Really? Who is going to insist on ton-for-ton replenishment of
organics? Heinlein makes it clear that the farmers aren't.
>>>Is it? It is made clear they *want* organics ton for ton.
>>More than that, it is made clear that they won't ship organics to
>>Earth unless they get them back ton for ton. That was the whole
>>reason for the revolution.
>For the Prof, Wyoh and Manuel perhaps but they hardly discuss it
>much in public I seem to remember.
No, of course not - that's part of the conspiracy. Getting back
organics is not economical and it is not popular. Therefore, it won't
get done by either government or business unless someone cheats.
>>Joseph, get out your copy of the book. It's right there where they
>>discuss strategy. It's also brought up when they discuss the climax
>>where the Lunar catapult gets destroyed - they deliberately allowed it
>>to be destroyed so that there wouldn't be pressure to ship food before
>>the Earth catapult was ready.
>No it occurs to MO'KD afterwards that the Professors plan entailed
>the destruction of the catapult. Hardly strategy for the rest of
>them.
So? How does that effect the point? The Professor is part of the
government, not a private entrepeneur.
>Not government control either. They do continue to buy wheat with
>Authority script it is true but they also needed gunners.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
>>Joseph, think about it. If part of the price of food deliveries to
>>Earth is an organics delivery to Luna then there are two
>>possibilities...
>>1. The food is worth enough to Earth that they will pay this price.
>>In that case, no subsidy is needed.
>Yep. Free Market solution.
>>2. The food is not worth enough to Earth that they will pay this
>>price. In that case, Earth is obviously not going to subsidise the
>>return shipments, and Luna obviously doesn't have the money.
>>Either way, subsidies are a non-issue.
>Thus the governments do not get involved, the market sorts it out.
>Either way.
Exactly. Involving subsidies would be absurd no matter what your
attitude on government is. How would you include subsidies in this equation?
>>>An authentic American could not help but give a nod in the direction
>>>of the US experience. It is part of what makes us what we are. RAH
>>>gives a little more than a nod though.
>>Nonsense. The only "nod" that he gives to the American experience is
>>the use of the Declaration of Independence.
>Congress?
Plenty of countries have congresses.
>Rational Anarchism?
That's American? Huh?
>Avoiding entangling alliances?
Where did you get that from?
>Brass cannons (I assume that is American I could be wrong)?
You are wrong.
>What is not American and also not invented? What part comes from elsewhere on
>Earth?
Just off-hand, the occupational representatives in the Congress have
no parallel in the US. Hong Kong has something like them, though.
The Prime Minister is copied from a parliamentary system, the system
of ministers (the US has secretaries), the requirement that members of
the cabinet be in the Congress exists in the British Parliament and I
believe in other parliamentary systems.
I think that's a good start.
>>Of course, by your rules,
>>the Chinese students in Tianneman Square were Americans because they
>>built that Goddess of Democracy statue.
>If you read their slogans you would have noticed they were
>firmly within Chinese tradition. Complaints about the state
>as a monolithic body, bureaucracy, lack of pluralism, one
>party state - the objections to these were couched in the
>traditional terminology and philosophy. Find an American who
>objects to a Monolithic State.
Actually, a lot of us do. Ever hear of Federalism?
>>>I think a Hispanic would not have copied the Declaration of
>>>Independence, no. He might have written a new one based on it
>>>but only an American would carry such idolisation so far as to
>>>copy it in its entirety.
>>What about someone who wanted to capture American public opinion?
>He would have said so. Or alternatively he might have thought
>of a reason why this should be necessary or required.
He did say so.
>>>>Do you admit that Heinlein makes it clear that a truly Libertarian
>>>>Luna would have been crushed by the FN?
>>>No.
>>OK. Please explain you position. In particular, note the bit where
>>Mike tells the revolutionary cabal that without him they don't have a
>>chance in Hell. Obviously, Mike is part of the cabal.
>Obviously. The Professor goes on quite a lot about the actions
>individuals must take, but on whom the responsibility falls.
>Clearly Revolution, like stealing the funds, is an example of
>this. The Prof, (and Libertarians by extension) did (and do) not
>approve of theft, however this was an action that was justified
>by the circumstances. Similarly the Professor can be a Libertarian
>while running a secret, heirarchical and disciplined revolutionary
>group. A bit of a relativist, old RAH.
Oh sure. I will happily agree that RAH supports Libertarianism as an
ideal. It's just that in his book he sets up a situation where true
Libertarianism would fail miserably. You seem to be conceding this point.
>>>How can you see it otherwise?
>>I can see it otherwise because Heinlein sets up a situation where a
>>true Libertaria would go down in flames.
>Perhaps this is so. I do not quite see it that way. Odd that
>the libertarians on the net often recommend this book isn't it?
Yes. However, I'm not a Libertarian and it's not my fault if they
don't think about what they read.
>>Are you claimng that the Loonies could have one without the secret
>>government?
>What secret government? The secret Revolutionary group perhaps but
>this does not conflict with either the concept of lesser evil nor
>with contempt for mass opinion. Neither uncommon in RAH's thought
>or that of the Founding Fathers or modern Libertarians.
Excuse me, but I don't think you will find many Libertarians who
support the idea of having a secret government behind the scenes.
David Rysdam
>In article <drysda02.752867801@ursa> drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes:
>>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>Possibly J. was the only man who held this entire
>>collection of ideas. Or possibly RAH felt that J. was someone the readers
>>could relate to more easily than, say, Locke.
>More than likely.
And?...
>>>Perhaps not. It still does not change the fact that he was not
>>>British but a Virginian. He did not consider himself British
>>>(Or do you have a quotation where he does?) nor did the British
>>>(and I have a couple from Samuel Johnson)
>>Ok. From now on I declare myself Australian. I'm sure I can get one of
>>your fellow countrymen to agree with me. Am I Australian by culture, now?
>>No, I suspect it is not that easy. I think that I am still culturally
>>American.
>You are missing the point. *I* do not consider you as an Australian.
>The rest of Australia probably doesn't either. Neither does the rest of
>the United States as far as I know. Jefferson was NOT considered a Brit
>by himself, by the rest of America's population, by the English and by
>everyone I know of since except you. How can you say he was?
My point is: It doesn't matter if you are considered as part of a certain
culture. What culture were you (or J.) raised in?
>>>>Which was intended only to throw rocks. No trade going on there.
>>>The ones of the Earth.
>>Ok. The ones of Earth. Mannie and Prof are shown (in the book)
>>specifically talking to only about 4 people about the wonders that the
>>catapult would bring. The most extensive by far, was the Chinese
>>gentleman--who was in the gov't. The only businessmen they talked to were
>>being persuaded that there was money to be made on the Moon and thus were
>>to vote with Luna.
>They had a private group in Luna prepared to back the catapult
>which they mentioned to the Chinese. What they needed was the
>permission to build and perhaps eminent domain. Strangely enough
>the African catapult - not a hint of government participation -
>was specifically mentioned as being built first.
What private group in Luna? What edition of the book did you read? Also,
I don't remember mention being made about _any_ Earth catapult actually
being built _ever_.
>>>The Authority was not a business but an arm of the FN. The Authority
>>>was a government organisation chartered by the FN and under its control.
>>Authority was a business. This is extremely clear.
>Not to me. Page references. Since when are the two incompatible anyway?
>If you have evidence of the Authority being a private company let see it.
Evidence
#1: Reference page 213 (among others) to Loonies as being
'client-employees' of Authority. Not citizens or anything remotely political.
#2: Page 212 Authority's 'trusteeship'.
#3: Page 183 "...Luna Authority [is] a non-political trusteeship charged
with the solemn duty..."
#4: Page 183 "Authority [is] older than Federated Nations, deriving
_charter (my emphasis) from an older international body..."
#5: Numerous references to the lack of taxes. _All_ gov'ts tax. And
before you say this is more evidence of Libertarianism (for whatever
reason) note that Authority are the bad guys--Not something the supposedly
Libertarian RAH would write.
>>To what extent they
>>were under the control of the FN is a little hazy. From references to
>>their relationship (eg. Authority existed before FN did) it would appear
>>that Authority wields more control than the FN.
>Really? More page numbers then. Yet when the FN backs down the
>Authority has to too. Odd that for a more influencial body.
Influential on the Moon. The Moon! The FN backs down when the conflict
starts to kill Earth-people. The FN has more power on Earth.
>>>That's what growing up is all about. You are taught things. Attitudes
>>>too. Quoting Jefferson Davis is a good example. Only a Southerner of
>>>a particular sort would sensibly do so.
>>When and where did Jefferson (Thomas, that is) grow up? What culture was
>>he exposed to?
>In Virginia. In the eighteenth century. American colonial.
I.e: British.
>>>No. Wyoh was a female character. We agree on that I assume. If you
>>>remove all the explicit references to her gender you can still tell
>>>that she is a woman. It is a integral part of the story, though maybe
>>>not a major part. If you removed all the "Sen~or"s and "Amigo"s and
>>>changed the name slightly any reasonable person, if asked to guess,
>>>would assume the Professor was a MidWestern Maths teacher as I bet
>>>the person the character is based on was.
>>How can I tell she is a woman? I'm looking for specific examples, here.
>Surrogate mother? The reason she hated the Authority. Bundling. Marriage.
>Persuasion of Greg (perhaps he was gay.) The Profs behaviour. What more
>do you want?
These are all direct references to sex. You can't use those, remember?
>>>Don't you think it a little odd that a supposedly Latino thinks that
>>>the works and writings of a dead Virginian are more important than
>>>his own history? So much so that his own history is totally excluded?
>>But you said before that this dead Virginian got his ideas from somebody
>>else, didn't you?
>But he does not quote them. He has not even heard of them otherwise
>he would not call TJ the first RA.
Could RA be defined as the collection of ideas that TJ held (which
collection has never been held, in toto, by anyone else before)?
>>>They had a military of sorts. Whether the Prof intended it to be
>>>permanent I can't say. He died before he could do anything. Odd
>>>that he does not once mention even the possibility.
>>Inasmuch as there are no taxes on Luna, they would have a hard time
>>supporting a standing army.
>Insomuch as they did have taxes they would not have had any problem.
You claim they had taxes? You've painted yourself in a corner, this time.
>>>>Corruption yes, but how do you guard against it?
>>>I do not know I am not a Latino.
>>Only Latinos know how to guard against corruption. Or are you saying that
>>you don't know how _Prof_ would have handled it? Either way, my point was
>>that guarding against corruption is well nigh unto impossible.
>Not exactly. But Latinos probably spend some time thinking about it.
>You and I and nearly everyone else here probably spend no time at all.
>The problem would not appear in a Constitution that *I* might write
>because it is not a problem I face.
It would appear in one that I write. I have thought about it a lot. I am
not Latino, so this proves nothing except that _anyone_ is free to think
outside his or her own culture. Not that this will convince _you_ of
anything.
>>Why wouldn't he expect it to last out the decade? He can see America from
>>where he is, and he knows it worked (fairly well, anyway) here.
>For reasons associated with American culture that, of course, is
>different from that on the Moon (isn't that what you have been
>claiming lately?)
What?
>>>O.K. You want to be picky (over what I have no idea) He *called*
>>>him an Hispanic. More like a Black and White Minstrel.
>>He created a character. He claimed that this character is Hispanic.
>>Therefore this character, however much his acts conflict with what you
>>consider Hispanic, is Hispanic.
>I am an American. I say so. Therefore I am. Same "logic".
#1: Hispanic is a race. American is a culture. If your skin is white
you are white. If your skin is black you are black. The way you act
cannot change your race. Mannie's skin brownish (Hispanic [race]) therefore
he is Hispanic (race). The identity principle.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem,
pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently,
die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
(drys...@calvin.edu can do 18 of these 21, how about you?)
Hans Rancke-Madsen
>A Black and White Minstrel does not have a White skin. They are
>all blacked up. Not that this is the issue, the point being that
>RAH's characters are Americans, they are not minorities, they are
>not foreigners of any sort.
But that is precisely Heinlein's point. Manny, Rico, Podkayne e.a. are
all well-integrated members of their respective societies _because_
race and skin colour are irrelevant to the worth of a person and those
societies recognized that. So those non-whites are, indeed, 'American-
type whites' in the sense that they are not minorities or foreigners.
And the fact of their colour or race is slipped into the story in a
deceptively casual manner to convey this.
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
ran...@diku.dk
------------
"Free speech gives a man the right to talk about the
'psycology' of an amoeba, but I don't have to listen".
Elihu Nivens in 'The Puppet Masters'
prunesquallor
>In a post up above, j...@dsbc.icl.co.uk (Jay Gooby) wrote:
>> If anyone has read any novels/short stories which feature forests and
>> have a pagan element or atmosphere in them, then I'd love to hear
>> about them!
>>
>> Books I've read so far are;
>>
>> The Devil in a Forest
>by Gene Wolfe
>> Mythago Wood
>> Lavondys
>> The Bone Forest
>all by Robert Holdstock. Word is a new one Mythago book is coming out
>RSN.
Out now in the UK. Entitled _The Hollowing_, I think.
--
m i c h a e l l. m e d l i n a l @ i r i s . c l a r e m o n t . e d u
i know why
fish swim in the sky
--chris knox
Michael Friedman
>In article <1993Nov9.1...@dg-rtp.dg.com> goud...@batman.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes:
>>In article <2bmohr$l...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>>opinion), so the Prof wants to influence US public opinion in order to
>>>>gain recognition for the Luna republic. Why would this be unusual or
>>>>surprising?
>>>RAH does not say so that I know of. Care to cite a page? He does say
>>>afterward that it was a propaganda bonus but that is different.
>>Huh? You ask why he deliberately engineered events to take place on
>>the magic date, and you admit that he later disclosed his ulterior
>>motives (the propaganda benefits) for doing so. Sounds to me like he
>>was out to influence US opinion the whole time (who else would July 4th
>>propaganda have any effect on?). Or are you saying that the date was a
>>mere coincidence?
>No I don't do any such thing. I wish you would stick to what I
>actually do say. I said *afterwards* there was a propaganda benefit.
>There was NO sign at the time that this was the reason the date was
>chosen. It was nice that it turned out that way I know of NO evidence
>that it was chosen for that purpose. Can I be any clearer?
Nope, but nor can you be wronger.
During the debate on the D of I, someone asks the Professor why it is
dated July 4 when the current date is only July 2. The Prof replies
that it is already past midnight, so it is July 3, that the D of I
probably won't be signed until July 4, and that July 4 has important
symobolic significance.
Ken Arromdee
>>>that is not found in Middle America or hold a position that is not
>>>in the mainstream American lexicon.
>>I see. So, in Middle America and the mainstream American lexicon we
>>can find ample support for miscegnation,
>Yep.
>>polygamy being superior to monogamy,
>Not entirely unknown in Middle America.
etc.
This dilutes the concept to meaninglessness. _Anything_ is a "position found
in Middle America" under these criteria; after all, you could probably find
someone who believes it.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
ObYouKnowWho Bait: Stuffed Turkey with Gravy and Mashed Potatoes
"There are no good or evil plants. There are only... plants." --Ficus (Quark)
David Zink
>In article <2bpkul$g...@panix.com>, David Zink (dz) writes:
>dz> Talk to a second generation Filpino-American over the phone sometime.
>dz> How can you tell they're F-A? [...]
>
>dz> You're just a simplistic twit who thinks that racial characteristics are
>dz> so overwhelming in their formative power that they dominate the
>dz> nature-nurture equation.
>
>Unles I am confused, you are providing arguments for the side of this
>argument oposite to that you seem to want to support.
How do you know what I want to support?
All that matters to me is accuracy. It is for sure that Podkayne and
Rico are not first generation Americans or Martians or World Citizens or
whatever. They are typical 23rd century citizens, as polyglot or
polyracial as anyone. I don't care what Heinlein's official stance
towards racism is; all I know is his effective stance, which is that
race is pretty irrelevant in determining what an individual can
accomplish.
>Heinlein's characters, at least in those books I've read which I will
>admit is far from all, are American. So, yes, maybe a good way to look
>at it is that when he said Filpino, one should take it to mean second
>generation Filpino-American, and not be suprised that there is little
>beyond that statment to indicate they are anything but stock middle
>class American cutouts. This makes the statment that they are, for
>instance, Filpino look suspiciously like tokenism.
Your mistake is in writing `stock middle class american cutouts'--
you should have written `stock middle class human cutouts'. And
accepted the cutout effect as what made it possible for the examples to
be seen as stock middle class.
>dz> Talk to a second generation Filpino-American over the phone sometime.
>dz> How can you tell they're F-A? [...]
>
>dz> You're just a simplistic twit who thinks that racial characteristics are
>dz> so overwhelming in their formative power that they dominate the
>dz> nature-nurture equation.
>
>Unles I am confused, you are providing arguments for the side of this
>argument oposite to that you seem to want to support.
The more I look at this, the more confused I am as what You think I am
supporting. In case this is too subtle: the F-A ness of an F-A (and it
is third or fourth generation Maoris that were the subject of the
discussion) is dependent upon the limitedness of the environment in
which he or she is raised. Nothing more or less.
-- David
David Zink
Mr. Askew writes:
>In article <2bpkul$g...@panix.com> I wrote:
>>In article <1993Nov9.2...@oracle.us.oracle.com>
mfri...@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes:
>
>>>>So RAH claimed Rico was a Philippino, if he didn't tell you how could
>>>>you tell?
>
>>Talk to a second generation Filpino-American over the phone sometime.
>>How can you tell they're F-A? I used to have a Polish-American
>>room-mate, and when he answered the phone, people thought he was black,
>>because he was from Dearborn.
>
>Then they are Americans not Philippinos. Second generation and all
>that. Still it might take longer but are you telling me that noone
>could possibly tell? Even if the discussion was about, say, police
>law enforcement in LA or quotas on disadvantaged students? or any
>one of a dozen topics in which even a second generation Philippino
>is likely (not assured only likely) to have a differing opinion to
>that of the mainstream?
Look, you bozo. If you paid attention at all to the conversation at hand,
you would know that the primary concern was: is it realistic for a
Filipino-American (or a Maori-martian) to be concerned with
present-tense(to them) issues at the expense of historical issues? I.
E., can Podkayne be a realistic Maori if she doesn't spend all her spare
time complaining about the way Europeans treated Maoris a few hundred
years before her time? Is it a sin that Heinlein's Filipino character
Rico is indistinguishable from a European except for his name, his role
models, and his skin tone (which is not mentioned until most of the way
through the novel)?
The answer to these questions depends upon one's predjudices; my comment
about second generation F-A's was accurate enough, since there is no
doubt that the characters involved were a couple generations down the
pike.
>>You're just a simplistic twit who thinks that racial characteristics are
>>so overwhelming in their formative power that they dominate the
>>nature-nurture equation. Grow up!
>
>Ahh I see someone else has the old RAH-fan manual out. Exactly where
>I have I *once* said there is such a thing as racial characteristics?
>Exactly where have I even said there is a direct causal link between
>race and culture? Throwing abuse is both childish and pathetic. Do
>better next time.
How are you determining that Rico or Podkayne are not representative of
their ethnic groups, if not by comparing them to some standard of ethnic
opressedness they fail to meet?
>>Or are you an essentialist, who thinks all Maoris are alike, and
>>therefore distinguishable from any other group?
>
>Ahh so you didn't even bother to work out my opnion before chosing
>the cheap option and flaming. Neat. Do they teach that in America
>or did you learn it all by yourself?
If you had a fixed opinion I would work it out. I am merely pointing
out that no matter what pitiful method you use to justify your position,
you are ethically bankrupt one way or another.
>>As someone recently pointed out, most South Americans have good reason
>>to take a dim view of the United States,
>
>That was indeed me. Nice to see you are keeping up and informed
>before opting to flame.
Nice to see you are thinking deeply before posting useful and
meaningful material.
>>Of my three most recent girlfriends, they and I have had ancestors on
>>opposite sides of dozens of pogroms during the last 120 years.
>
>How nice. Did you stop to ask what my SO is doing in this country?
>No of course not. Not when you can flame instead.
Nice sequitur. Keep up the good work. Keep impressing the Perot fans.
>>>>My test is the blind taste test. Where you wear a blindfold and
>>>>try and pick the Classic Coke. If you remove all references to
>>>>race and colour from I Will Fear No Evil and then had to guess,
>>>>on first reading, about the origins of the characters do you
>>>>think that you would have any problems in guessing White American?
>
>>At various moments during the past few hundred years, you would have had
>>no problem distinguishing a Russian Jew from a Spanish Jew from a German
>>Jew from an Irishman from an Engishman from a Scotsman from a Welshman
>>from a German from a Frenchman. Yet their descendants are so thoroughly
>>blended here that most people can't begin to distinguish them.
>
>They have all become Americans. So what? This affects my argument?
>I don't think so. Can you still tell an Englishman from an Irishman?
>Don't know about you but I can.
But we weren't dealing with Englishman vs Irishman, you incompetent. We
were dealing with Maori's as they might be a few centuries from now.
Weren't you paying attention? Don't you care? Your arguments have no
weight besides predjudice to carry them.
>>How many people in this country are so prejudiced that they will insist
>>on getting in a subway car with a half-dozen rowdy white ghetto kids
>>instead of one with a half dozen black college professors?
>
>I have no idea. Do I care? Not much. Is this relevant? I think not.
>Did you bother to understand before flaming? Didn't think so.
I understood completely. Can you say the same? Was I flaming you? I
know it must hurt you deeply to remain unflamed, but I only took jabs at
the underlying truth. If my jabs intersected you, it is only because
you wrote material contrary to the truth. You seem to think I have
nothing better to do than to flame the rantings of puerile idiots.
>>Heinlein's firm belief was that once access to economic opportunity
>>and assimilation allowed minorities to catch up, the old prejudices
>>would fade. Just like the old prejudices against `mics' and `wops' have
>>faded once you get away from Hell's Kitchen and Bensonhurst.
>
>That is nice. Have I said otherwise? Is this not integral to
>my argument? Have you understood before flaming?
Have you understood before flaming?
>>And assimilation doesn't mean becoming like a white American. That's
>>not the way it really works.
>
>Yes it is. Show me an assimilated Black who still speaks Gullah.
Show me an assimilated Italian who still speaks Sicilian, an assimilated
Irishman who still speaks Irish, or an assimilated Scotsman who still
speaks gaelic, or an assimilated Frenchman who still speaks French.
The fact is, almost no matter what ethnic group you come from, Iowan is
not your native dialect.
>>Look at mathematics--almost completely
>>dominated by Arabic influence (a few centuries ago) but did they reject
>>it because it was not European?
>
>Nice to know mathematics was dominated by Arabs. Nothing to do
>with dead Greeks of course.
A lovely non-sequitur.
>>Business culture is dominated by what works.
>
>That's nice for you.
A stunning rejoinder.
>>Behaviors fall into three rough categories:
>>what works, what fails, and what doesn't matter.
>
>A lecture on behaviour. My lucky day. Relevance?
You are the paranoid who sees all posts as somehow flaming or supporting
you. No one else sees them that way.
>Did any part of this post have the slightest relevance to a word
>that I have said once over the last week or so? Was this a total
>waste of my time? Now you have flamed me for some imagined idea
>of what I think do you feel better? Am I to expect this every
>week or only on special occassions?
You are the paranoid who sees all posts as somehow flaming or supporting
you. No one else sees them that way.
>Joseph Askew
>
>--
>Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
Stoopid and paranoid.
My posts are not an attack on you, they are just a comment on reality.
When I respond to a post of Michael Friedman's, what gives you the right
to assume I give a damn about your bigoted opinions?
-- David
David Rysdam
>In article <drysda02.752866705@ursa> drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes:
>>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>In our history convicts worked in chain gnags or were leased out
>>>to free or freed settlers. Only in America were they essentially
>>>let go as, it would appear, they mostly were in tMiaHM. Also of
>>>course we had a large military presence.
>>Also, of course, letting somebody go in America (where there is plenty of
>>food, water and oxygen) is much different than letting them go on the Moon
>>(where none of these things exist unless you pay for the). TANSTAAFL.
>Which is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
Not at all. You said that early US and Luna were similar in that in both
places the criminals were 'let go'. I'm saying that happened in both
places, too, but Luna is a _much_ tougher environment. The criminals must
co-exist with other people and support themselves. This imposes heavy
restrictions on them. Restrictions that are totally absent in the early US.
>>>But no chain gang. No Port Arthur.
>>Define chain gang in such a way as to exclude my example.
>Which example was that?
The one you erased. How convenient.
>>>>Discipline Sites: No farther than the nearest airlock.
>>>Official murders? Where were they mentioned?
>>Are you asking if there were official murders on the Moon? Read the
>>"Judge Brody" section of the book.
>So I did. Was he appointed by the government? Was he a civilian?
>A murder perhaps but hardly official.
I know. Are you saying that in Australia there were official murders. Or
in the early US there were unofficial murders?
>>>Not exactly. RAH decided to call him non-White for some reason
>>>I do not know. Whether or not it is justifiable to call him so
>>>is another question.
>>If someone's skin is not white then that person is not white. Simple
>>logic. If a person's skin is not white they may be of _any_ culture.
>A Black and White Minstrel does not have a White skin. They are
>all blacked up. Not that this is the issue, the point being that
>RAH's characters are Americans, they are not minorities, they are
>not foreigners of any sort.
>>Again, simple logic (with one hidden assumption: A culture is something
>>you grow up in.) RAH never names the culture from which Mannie came. He
>>does name the skin color (or at least says it is not white.) Using the
>>above premises we can conclude the following: Mannie is not white.
>>Mannie's culture is unknown.
>MO'KD culture *is* known - he is an American whether RAH said so
>or not. As for his skin colour, it is not important to the story,
>it is not indicated by anything other than RAH claim, it is not
>pertinent.
RAH's claim is the only important one. One's race is not determined by
one's color! They are completely separate.
>>The truth often is. Again, given that fact that culture is something you
>>grow up in, we see that Mannie _cannot_ be from any other culture.
>I thought you just said his culture was unknown? No don't start.
You know what I mean. He is a Loonie by culture. Whether this culture is
American has yet to be determined.
>>>>Of course, I forgot. Culture = Race. If a man's eyes have epicanthic
>>>>folds he must have a long memory of civil wars and rebellions.
>>>Now you are being silly. People are Chinese by culture not by race.
>>Why are you supposing that this man is Chinese by culture?
>Which man? We were talking about those from HKL who were *claimed*
>to be Chinese.
By race.
Michael Friedman
>In article <1993Nov8.0...@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfri...@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <2bjv9p$m...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>Alright I'll accept that. RAH does list it first but I don't suppose
>>>that means much. Anyway back to my original point - Independence Day
>>>is fixed to make it the Four of July. Why?
>>Read the book. Heinlein says why explicitly - to influence US public
>>opinion.
>No he does not. He says, later, it did, but not that it was the
>reason behind the choice of date. Do you have a reference otherwise?
Yup. He tells Congress that the choice of date is symbolic during the
session in which they write it.
>>>>>Nothing from our history there.
>>>>Have you studied your history?
>>>Yep. Want to try me? Draw a comparison, I'll tell you where you're wrong.
>>Penal colony?
>Nothing like the Moon. This I believe was drawn from US history
>not ours. We had a very different system.
I don't think you know much about the US. In general, when people
think about a penal colony becoming a nation the example that is used
is Australia. Although some criminals were sent to the US they were a
small minority.
>>>This is just so untrue I hardly know where to start. The US has a unique
>>>and distinct culture. Not one I care for much but it does have one. Nor
>>>is it a mixture of every other culture.
>>I don't think you know the US nearly as well as you think you do.
>>Could you please describe this culture for us?
>Not very well I couldn't. I shall not try. I would claim that
>libertarianism is uniquely American both as a political ideology
>and on a lower scale as a attitude to government but that would
>be asking for trouble. The US *does* have a culture - that is why
>the French want films exempted from GATT and I trust them to know
>culture when they see it :-)
Since you mark this with a smiley I assume it is a joke and not a
serious response. Do you have a serious response to my question?
>>>>2) Read the book again and pay special attention to the references to the
>>>>Chinese and Hindus in Hong Kong Luna. They outnumber the so-called "white
>>>>americans" by quite a hefty margin.
>>>There are references to Chinese in HongKong Luna. They play a minor
>>>role I will admit. Still the Revolutuion is lead by people from what
>>>I assume to be the American moonbase (that is, HKL is clearly Chinese,
>>>Churchill is I assume English, NovyLeningrad is Russian, who owned
>>>theirs?)
>>Wrong again. Luna City pretty clearly isn't owned by any nation. If
>>anyone owns it, it's the FN.
>O.K. Poor choice of words. However all the cities were fairly
>clearly founded by one nation or the other. Luna City was the
>one that the US founded (by inference at least)
Could you please point me to something in the book that leads to this
inference?
>>>No major charcters are Chinese. Hindus make a few passing references but
>>>no NonEuropeans make an impact that their number might suggest.
>>Please make up your mind. First you claim that everyone in charge is
>>an American. Then you claim that none of them are non-Europeans.
>Welcome to the wonderful world of racial euphemism.
So what do you mean? White? White American? American?
>>Also, how do you classify Manny? His skin is clearly pretty dark.
>Is it? Says who? His classification is exactly the problem. For
>his own reasons RAH decided to give him a mixed racial background.
>Why I can't say - perhaps he wanted to make a racial harmony point.
>However if you ignore the bits that tell you his background I think
>you could not infer it. Indeed the assumptino would be that he was
>a White American Middle Class male.
Don't his problems with Ground-hog racism count? What would you look
for to convince you that he was an authentic mulatto?
>>Professor Bernardo de La Paz is also pretty clearly South American,
>>not European.
>Is he? How so? His manners are exactly European in an old fashioned
>sort of way.
So are those of many upper class Latin Americans. I've met them.
>>>Still the
>>>bottom line is that they do NOT outnumber the White Americans or at least
>>>it is not claimed they do - on Luna. If you have a reference then I will
>>>look it up.
>>Can you please tell us where you get the idea that white Americans
>>outnumber everyone else?
>Actually I don't get that idea myself. It was the opposite of the
>claim of the previous poster. He claimed they did. From the book
>I fail to see how you can get that impression.
Great. So you don't see how anyone could get the impression that
white Americans outnumber everyone else. I agree. I don't think the
book gives you enough info to tell.
>>It seems pretty bizarre to assume that the majority
>>are from the US without evidence.
>Let's list all the people mentioned then shall we?
Ok.
Stuart LaJoie is a Brit, the Prof is Brazilian(?), Wyoh is an
American, that's all I remember. Would anyone else like to contribute?
>>Joseph, I don't think you know Latin America as well as you think you
>>do, either. Let me point out that, although there are exceptions, the
>>US has not invaded or overthrown governments in most of Latin America.
>Well lets see Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua (occupied it
>for 20 odd years), Panama, Colombia, Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic,
>I'll ignore Chile because I suppose you only helped them to do it
>themselves, Argentinia no, Brazil no, Costa Rica not that I know
>of but I would be suprised if you didn't (I'll count that as a no),
>Venezuela? I think so but I cannot remember when - no again. El
>Salvador yep occupied in the twenties I believe. That's ten by my
>count. How many have I missed? Some of these are multiple or long
>term occupations too. I call that most. How about you? (I can't
>think of Ecuador or Peru or Bolivia or Paraguay or Uraguay at the
>moment but I'll find out if anyone is interested)
Note that the Professor was Brazilian, one of the countries that the
US has not had bad relations with. Another interesting point is that
Brazil has a Portugese, rather than Spanish, heritage. They generally
don't care very much about the Hispanic heritage of the rest of Latin
Mark Rosenfelder
David Rysdam <drys...@ursa.calvin.edu> wrote:
>#1: Hispanic is a race. American is a culture. If your skin is white
>you are white. If your skin is black you are black. The way you act
>cannot change your race. Mannie's skin brownish (Hispanic [race]) therefore
>he is Hispanic (race). The identity principle.
Hispanic is not a race. Hispanic is a culture.
Hispanics include whites, blacks, Indians, white-black mixtures (e.g.
most Puerto Ricans), white-Indian mixtures (e.g. most Mexican-Americans),
Asians, and more exotic mixtures.
And no, muchacho, they're not all "brown".
ed...@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) wrote:
>Note that the Professor was Brazilian, one of the countries that the
>US has not had bad relations with. Another interesting point is that
>Brazil has a Portugese, rather than Spanish, heritage.
"De la Paz" is a Spanish, not a Portuguese name. As for "bad relations",
helping to overthrow an elected government and supporting the subsequent
military dictatorship is bound to leave a bit of bad feeling, eh?
Bob Goudreau
>
>>1) "The British have a long history of meddling in US politics and
>> economy...".
>Again no meddling. Did they bring down a President? Did they form
>policy in Washington? Did they interfere in politics *at*all*in*
>any*form*? So where was their meddling?
Gee, you seem to have conceded Sigurd's "meddling in the US economy"
claim. As for the politics part, if the subtleties of economic
influence in the political field elude you, perhaps you'll recall an
outright war (the War of 1812), or later squabbles over the borders of
the Oregon Territory. Hardly apolitical episodes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Bob Goudreau
>
>>the magic date, and you admit that he later disclosed his ulterior
>>motives (the propaganda benefits) for doing so. Sounds to me like he
>>was out to influence US opinion the whole time (who else would July 4th
>>propaganda have any effect on?). Or are you saying that the date was a
>>mere coincidence?
>
>No I don't do any such thing. I wish you would stick to what I
>actually do say.
No need to get petulant, as I didn't claim you said that; I merely
*asked* if that's what you meant to say. A simple "no" will suffice.
>I said *afterwards* there was a propaganda benefit.
>There was NO sign at the time that this was the reason the date was
>chosen. It was nice that it turned out that way I know of NO evidence
>that it was chosen for that purpose. Can I be any clearer? The date
>was NOT mere coincidence but I think reflected RAH own prejudices.
Someone has already pointed out that the text of the book itself
explicitly refutes your hypothesis that the Prof didn't know in
advance about the significance of the date.
>>> Why is it unusual? It involves direct falsification of a nations
>>> history. Not the sort of thing people take lying down.
>
>>I'm not sure what direct falsification of history you're talking about
>>here. Please elaborate.
>
>Because July Fourth was NOT the day, it happened TWO days earlier
>but the Prof fixed the date.
The great irony here is that the Declaration of Independence itself
was actually completed on July 2nd! There were some inadvertant delays
that pushed the "official" date of adoption back by two days. One of
the signers (I forget which) later objected to celebrating July 4th
as independence day, as he maintained that the 2nd was the real day
that should be commemorated.
I wonder if the Prof (and/or Heinlein) was trying to draw the
American Revolution parallel even *more* explicitly than we thought...
David Rysdam
>Attempting to correct some errors about Hispanics/ Latin America...
>David Rysdam <drys...@ursa.calvin.edu> wrote:
>>#1: Hispanic is a race. American is a culture. If your skin is white
>>you are white. If your skin is black you are black. The way you act
>>cannot change your race. Mannie's skin brownish (Hispanic [race]) therefore
>>he is Hispanic (race). The identity principle.
>Hispanic is not a race. Hispanic is a culture.
>Hispanics include whites, blacks, Indians, white-black mixtures (e.g.
>most Puerto Ricans), white-Indian mixtures (e.g. most Mexican-Americans),
>Asians, and more exotic mixtures.
>And no, muchacho, they're not all "brown".
Yes, I know. I realize that I put this very badly (and I'm sorry if I
offended anyone). What I meant was: Mannie's skin is nonwhite therefore
he is nonwhite.
[stuff not referring to me deleted]
Thomas Reid Scudder
>In article <2brvfs$p...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>I said *afterwards* there was a propaganda benefit.
>>There was NO sign at the time that this was the reason the date was
>>was NOT mere coincidence but I think reflected RAH own prejudices.
>
>Someone has already pointed out that the text of the book itself
>explicitly refutes your hypothesis that the Prof didn't know in
>advance about the significance of the date.
>
and yes, it was intentional, but to claim that the whole reason that the
declaration was signed on the fourth was because the Professor was incredibly
devious and sensed the possibilities for a propaganda coup is silly. He
directly copied the US Declaration of Independence because he was such an
admirer of Jefferson (there's a line somewhere about how Jefferson said it
so well that there was no point changing the wording), and the propaganda
value is just gravy.
--
Tom Scudder Schroedinger's Vet: Specializing in
tom...@ruf.rice.edu gassed cats and monkeys with
Carpal-tunnel syndrome.
Joseph Askew
>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>A Black and White Minstrel does not have a White skin. They are
>>all blacked up. Not that this is the issue, the point being that
>>RAH's characters are Americans, they are not minorities, they are
>>not foreigners of any sort.
>But that is precisely Heinlein's point. Manny, Rico, Podkayne e.a. are
>all well-integrated members of their respective societies _because_
>race and skin colour are irrelevant to the worth of a person and those
>societies recognized that. So those non-whites are, indeed, 'American-
>type whites' in the sense that they are not minorities or foreigners.
>And the fact of their colour or race is slipped into the story in a
>deceptively casual manner to convey this.
I have no problem with any of this. Except I suppose that I think
RAH had other motives for choosing the racial background for his
characters. RAH made conscious choices about the colour or otherwise
of his characters. He did not do it by accident. It is natural to
assume he had a purpose in the choices he made. Now perhaps he want
to convey an idea of the future where race did not matter. More than
likely. I think he had other reasons as well. Consider tMiaHM. If you
ignore the two main characters of Professor de la Paz and Manuel (and
for simplicity's sake the Computer) the rest are almost uniformly Anglo.
Take the Cabinet. Wyoming Davis is an American. As is Terence Sheehan.
Stuart Rene LaJoie is of course a simple minded American stereotype of
an British aristocrat. Wolfgang Korsakov has a German first name and a
Russian surname but is claimed to have studied at Oxford. Anglo by
culture and education if not by birth. Finn Nielson, like Sheehan,
claims special knowledge of Americans although no background is given
to my knowledge. The only other character is "Comrade Clayton" who is
not given a first name, who is the only one refered to by his pseudonym,
who has one tiny part of about half a page, does not speak in Cabinet
once, does not have any lines at all to my best recollection and above
all is Japanese - the least offense foreigner to an American in 1966.
A token Asian. Otherwise no Asian of any sort, no African, no other
Europeans make any significant appearance at all. No matter what RAH
thought about the future tMiaMH shows a world where White Anglos are
still very much in control and have a dominating influence. Either that
or he was not very comfortable writing about nonWhite Americans.
This just leaves Mannie and the Professor. Now I still do not know why
the Professor is claimed to be Latino. Unless RAH wanted to make a point
about the Universal applicability of Jefferson's ideas. By having a non
American support these ideas he is giving them international significance
they do not have. Maybe maybe not. In any event one thing that tMiaHM has
been claimed to be lately, that I sort of agree with, is a moral lesson on
race. RAH is, in my opinion, trying to rescue the ideas of Jefferson and
the man himself from accusations of inherent racism. By presenting a world
where racism does not exist and one where people have been left alone by
meddling governments, a world based roughly on Libertarian principles, he
is claiming that racism exists in the US because Jefferson was not listened
to. If the US had followed his lead exactly there would be no problem. This
of course ignores Jeffersons own views on race and slavery. It also distorts
them to a great degree. No place in tMiaHM for the laws Jefferson tried to
pass making living with a Black punishable by death or worse. tMiaHM is an
attempt to justify Libertarian and especially Jefferson to an America that
had grown angry at racism. Furthermore it proves an excuse for Heinlein to
take the odd pot shot at those opposed to racism. In particular Mannie says
that "Is a mixed up place in another way; they care about skin colour - by
making a point of how they *don't* care.....Think I prefer a place as openly
racist as India, where if you aren't Hindu, you're nobody - except that
Parsees look down on Hindus and vica versa" The odd thing about this is that
the counter example RAH picks is not a racial problem. It is a religious
dispute. RAH has a lot of other examples to choose from. One of Mannies
grandparents came from South Africa but of course to say "I prefer a place
as openly racist as South Africa" does not quite sound as nice. This book
was written in 1966. Before Blacks could vote in the US and while the civil
rights protests were still going on. Naturally he does not say "I prefer a
place as openly racist as Alabama" either. Yet both examples are a better
indicator of what he means than India which is not even a racial dispute.
When it comes to race RAH says through this character that he prefers the
open racism of Governor Wallace to the Civil Rights beliefs of President
Kennedy. And he does so very cleverly. He uses India as an example to
hide behind. In the same way he uses Mannies colour to hide behind. It
would not be right for a White to say any such thing, so RAH makes him
a nonWhite and gets away with it. This is why Mannie is black.
Joseph Askew
>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>Which is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
>Not at all. You said that early US and Luna were similar in that in both
>places the criminals were 'let go'. I'm saying that happened in both
>places, too, but Luna is a _much_ tougher environment. The criminals must
>co-exist with other people and support themselves. This imposes heavy
>restrictions on them. Restrictions that are totally absent in the early US.
The counter claim was that the Moon had something like Australian
history. We didn't let them go . The air and food problems are of
no importance as they are local to the Moon. They have nothing to
do with our history. The Moon as presented in tMiaHM, as I have
said before, is entirely American or a figment of RAH imagination.
Well nearly entirely. Almost nothing is taken from anyone else's
history only from America.
>>>Are you asking if there were official murders on the Moon? Read the
>>>"Judge Brody" section of the book.
>>So I did. Was he appointed by the government? Was he a civilian?
>>A murder perhaps but hardly official.
>I know. Are you saying that in Australia there were official murders. Or
>in the early US there were unofficial murders?
I am saying there were none on the Moon. There were quite a few
official executions around here. Nothing here taken from our
history.
>>MO'KD culture *is* known - he is an American whether RAH said so
>>or not. As for his skin colour, it is not important to the story,
>>it is not indicated by anything other than RAH claim, it is not
>>pertinent.
>RAH's claim is the only important one. One's race is not determined by
>one's color! They are completely separate.
Are you sure you meant to make this claim? RAH's claim is not what
is important. What is important are the reasons RAH made his claim
not the claim itself.
>You know what I mean. He is a Loonie by culture. Whether this culture is
>American has yet to be determined.
I think it has been pretty well decided. Exactly what was not American?
>>Which man? We were talking about those from HKL who were *claimed*
>>to be Chinese.
>By race.
Watanabe was claimed to be Japanese by culture and his race was
specifically meantioned as mixed. The Chinese were not mentioned
at all by name, by race, by culture or otherwise.
Joseph Askew
>In article <2bs6s4$3...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>This dilutes the concept to meaninglessness. _Anything_ is a "position found
>in Middle America" under these criteria; after all, you could probably find
>someone who believes it.
This is probably true. However as political ideas go, Middle America
does not, probably cannot, provide an intellectual argument against
any of these practises. Polygamy is a good example. The Conservative,
Catholic, often openly Reactionary thinkers you cab still find in
Europe (eg Auberon Waugh) can provide such a rationale. Middle America
cannot. They probably have gut bigoted reactions to various behaviours
but couldn't put a rational line of argument against it together. They
would probably even support such behaviour if phrased right. An example
would be the Mormons of New Mexico. They openly practise polygamy, there
was a famous police raid in the 50's in which all the children were taken
into "care" but public opinion made the state government give up. The very
tolerance that you allude to *is* a Middle American value :-)
Joseph Askew
>In article <2bs6s4$3...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>Bigoted because you assume that White American and fundamentalist
>>>Moslem or mutually exclusive.
>>For all intents and purposes they are. That is not quite as bad
>>as it sounds as the numbers of Anglo Islamic Fundamentalist is
>>probably very very close to the margin of error in any census.
>Joseph, are you claiming that to be an authentice American you need to
>be Anglo? If that is so then by your definitions I'm not an American.
No I claim you must have the attitudes and culture of the mainstream
to be a member of it. Anglo is not equivalent to American although
it comes close to White American.
>>I would assume that Freedom of Speech is an American cultural
>>norm. I have never met an American who was not in favour of it
>>subject to one or two minor restrictions at most. Islam calls
>>for certain punishments for certain forms of free speech and I
>>don't know of any Islamic country that enshrines it in their
>>Constitution in any meaningful way (or at all actually) How
>>many examples do you want?
>Joseph, you've obviously never visited the Bible Belt. There are
>plenty of places in the US where they would happily jail people for
>blasphemy if they could get away with it. I'll admit that they
>usually don't advocate the death penalty for blasphemy, but I think
>that's a minor difference.
Well I don't. I think that the majority of Americans would actively
oppose any change to the Constitution that made Blasphemy against
the law. Even in the Bible Belt. Free Speech is an American cultural
norm. They even let Communists speak and I'll bet the Bible Belt would
have loved to kill all of them.
>>>incest,
>>Such as?
>In half of his books. Also, technically, Ludmilla in TMIAHM.
Which half? And you will notice that he is very careful to explain
there was no suchg problem with Ludmilla.
>>Not entirely unknown in Middle America.
>No, but hardly a cultural norm. Even the Mormons forbid it.
Most do. However laws against it, while existing still in some
places are, due to public pressure, no used against Mormons who
still practise it.
>>>TANSTAAFL,
>>Way of life.
>I wish. Half of America thinks that government spending comes from heaven.
Actually they have not adopted the opposite, they merely exempt themselves.
"*I* deserve money from the government but those Black single Mothers? Let
'em fend for themselves". Government spending is one of those irregular
verbs, I am supported, he is porked, they should starve.
>>You mean killing oppressive occupying soldiery? Not what I
>>would call unknown in Americas past is it?
>Nope, but we didn't kill POWs.
When? The US, like most European countries, has a poor record when
nonWhite POW's are involved. And I don't want to start this thread.
I have had enough of it in the past. The records for Japanese POW's
in WW2 are there if you want to look at them and the Indian Tecumsah
was turned into straps for razors. However in tMiaHM RAH can hardly
be said to support such actions.
>>If you pick the right Middle America.
>Well, if you pick the right Middle America, what CAN'T you find
>support for?
This is true. However RAH did not support Free Love as such in
his early work. Perhaps aSiaSL but I will not read it so I might
be wrong. References?
>>I don't think he particularly likes these churches but it is
>>not hard to find Churches who believe these sort of things in
>>Middle America. Salt Lake City for instance.
>I don't think the Mormons compare with the Fosterites. Now, David
>Khoresh did, but you saw what the US did to him.
And quite a lot of people have loudly objected. Especially here
on the net. Is there anyone who supports Reno?
>>I assume that if someone has the characteristics that mark him/her
>>as being an American, a stated claim to the contrary is not convincing.
>But you have never given us a convincing description of the
>characteristics that mark people as Americans.
It is a little hard isn't it? If you can do an easy one, say
what marks Eastern European Jews out uniquely, I will try for
Americans. (Someone I read on the weekend said she thought that
there were three things that marked you out as Jewish when she
was growing up. Yiddish, Socialism, Not believing in God.)
>>There is such a thing a culture and Philippinos have one.
>So? There is such a thing as Eastern European Jewish culture. I know
>virtually nothing about it. Why should Rico know any more about
>Fillippino culture?
Because he spoke Tagalog.
>3. Answer the argument. This girl was culturally assimmilated. She
>was also a pure-blood Filippino. If Heinlein wrote about her,
>wouldn't you be claiming that she wasn't a real Filippino?
That is an interesting question. Real people are different from
fictional characters. In real life people are all sorts of things
for all sorts of reasons. In fiction the writer has intent and
purpose. What purpose is served by having a Philippino character?
Perhaps it is vital to the plot, perhaps it adds a special flavour
to the story, perhaps it is necessary for the logical coherence of
the plot, perhaps the author felt like it or perhaps there is an
alternative reason. I claim that RAH falls into the last two groups
and not into any of the previous ones.
>>>and the only times I refer to it are when I tell people that I'm
>>>damned if I'll give up my right to own a gun
>>I suppose if I said this was an American cultural norm I would
>>get flamed right? It isn't an argument you see a lot of others
>>make.
>Well, you can argue that it's an American cultural norm if you want,
>but given that polls show that it is a minority view I don't see how
>you could justify your argument.
The idea of a right to a gun is not something you find elsewhere.
>>Well most *American* writers write about White Americans. Males too.
>>Have you tried it with a Soviet author? Even Clarke, to me, leaves
>>a distinct British feel to much of his work. Especially the earlier
>>stuff.
>Yes, but we are talking about one American writer who made a point of
>often not writing about Americans.
Well again I would claim he made a point of *saying* he was not
writing about Americans. Not that he actually did in any real sense.
>>Their is in Loonies. Ambiguous I admit.
>Well, why would you expect the Authority to do something that was not
>in their best interest whether it is a government or a private entity?
"Their" as in Loonies. The Authority prevented the Loonies from
doing what was in their own best interest.
>>It is still a question of removing government control not adding it.
>Really? Who is going to insist on ton-for-ton replenishment of
>organics? Heinlein makes it clear that the farmers aren't.
Heinlein fixed it so that the problem was solved *without* any
government intervention. Namely he had the Professor fix things
so that the catapult would be bombed. Not a governmental solution
at all. Not one requiring legislative restrictions anyway.
>>For the Prof, Wyoh and Manuel perhaps but they hardly discuss it
>>much in public I seem to remember.
>No, of course not - that's part of the conspiracy. Getting back
>organics is not economical and it is not popular. Therefore, it won't
>get done by either government or business unless someone cheats.
It probably doesn't get done period then.
>>No it occurs to MO'KD afterwards that the Professors plan entailed
>>the destruction of the catapult. Hardly strategy for the rest of
>>them.
>So? How does that effect the point? The Professor is part of the
>government, not a private entrepeneur.
No he is an individual who twists government policy.
>>Thus the governments do not get involved, the market sorts it out.
>>Either way.
>Exactly. Involving subsidies would be absurd no matter what your
>attitude on government is. How would you include subsidies in this equation?
I don't quite understand this question but subsidies are inevitable if
the Free Market can't provide the solution.
>>>Nonsense. The only "nod" that he gives to the American experience is
>>>the use of the Declaration of Independence.
>>Congress?
>Plenty of countries have congresses.
Do they? A few American colonies and quasi-colonies perhaps. They
are not too common in Africa for example. Nor in Asia outside the
Philippines. Nor do we have one. Nor is there one in Europe. I
can't comment on Latin America where there are several I believe.
It is an American terms.
>>Rational Anarchism?
>That's American? Huh?
Yep.
>>Avoiding entangling alliances?
>Where did you get that from?
The Prof's last (or nearly last) words with Mannie.
>>Brass cannons (I assume that is American I could be wrong)?
>You are wrong.
Really? Who else palys with these toys?
>>What is not American and also not invented? What part comes from elsewhere on
>>Earth?
>Just off-hand, the occupational representatives in the Congress have
>no parallel in the US.
Which occupational representatives?
>The Prime Minister is copied from a parliamentary system, the system
>of ministers (the US has secretaries), the requirement that members of
>the cabinet be in the Congress exists in the British Parliament and I
>believe in other parliamentary systems.
Notice that the Moon had Secretaries too. The Prime Minister was
powerless and so not a copy from the English system. The last
point is nearly right except of course we don't have a Congress.
>I think that's a good start.
I don't.
>>If you read their slogans you would have noticed they were
>>firmly within Chinese tradition. Complaints about the state
>>as a monolithic body, bureaucracy, lack of pluralism, one
>>party state - the objections to these were couched in the
>>traditional terminology and philosophy. Find an American who
>>objects to a Monolithic State.
>Actually, a lot of us do. Ever hear of Federalism?
Different objection.
>>>What about someone who wanted to capture American public opinion?
>>He would have said so. Or alternatively he might have thought
>>of a reason why this should be necessary or required.
>He did say so.
No he did not.
>>Perhaps this is so. I do not quite see it that way. Odd that
>>the libertarians on the net often recommend this book isn't it?
>Yes. However, I'm not a Libertarian and it's not my fault if they
>don't think about what they read.
So you are right and alt,politics.libertarian is wrong?
Joseph Askew
>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>You are missing the point. *I* do not consider you as an Australian.
>>The rest of Australia probably doesn't either. Neither does the rest of
>>the United States as far as I know. Jefferson was NOT considered a Brit
>>by himself, by the rest of America's population, by the English and by
>>everyone I know of since except you. How can you say he was?
>My point is: It doesn't matter if you are considered as part of a certain
>culture. What culture were you (or J.) raised in?
No it does not. What matters is what you are considered. Alexander
Graham Bell immigrated from Scotland (ie was raised in Scot culture)
but went to the US. Was he a great American inventor or not?
>What private group in Luna? What edition of the book did you read? Also,
>I don't remember mention being made about _any_ Earth catapult actually
>being built _ever_.
Really? The group is mentioned when he talks to Chan. The two catapults
are discussed at the end.
>>>>The Authority was not a business but an arm of the FN. The Authority
>>>>was a government organisation chartered by the FN and under its control.
>>>Authority was a business. This is extremely clear.
>>Not to me. Page references. Since when are the two incompatible anyway?
>>If you have evidence of the Authority being a private company let see it.
>Evidence
>#1: Reference page 213 (among others) to Loonies as being
>'client-employees' of Authority. Not citizens or anything remotely political.
Nothing that would not imply it was an Arm of the FN either.
>#2: Page 212 Authority's 'trusteeship'.
So? Businesses don't have trusteeships.
>#3: Page 183 "...Luna Authority [is] a non-political trusteeship charged
>with the solemn duty..."
ie not a business.
>#4: Page 183 "Authority [is] older than Federated Nations, deriving
>_charter (my emphasis) from an older international body..."
ie it was an amr of (I would guess) the UN.
>#5: Numerous references to the lack of taxes. _All_ gov'ts tax. And
>before you say this is more evidence of Libertarianism (for whatever
>reason) note that Authority are the bad guys--Not something the supposedly
>Libertarian RAH would write.
Lack of taxes? They paid an air tax didn't they?
>>In Virginia. In the eighteenth century. American colonial.
>I.e: British.
The rest of the world does not agree with you.
>>Surrogate mother? The reason she hated the Authority. Bundling. Marriage.
>>Persuasion of Greg (perhaps he was gay.) The Profs behaviour. What more
>>do you want?
>These are all direct references to sex. You can't use those, remember?
No they are not. They imply gender they do not specify it.
>>But he does not quote them. He has not even heard of them otherwise
>>he would not call TJ the first RA.
>Could RA be defined as the collection of ideas that TJ held (which
>collection has never been held, in toto, by anyone else before)?
Then he got his ideas from a Dead American. As I said.
>>>Inasmuch as there are no taxes on Luna, they would have a hard time
>>>supporting a standing army.
>>Insomuch as they did have taxes they would not have had any problem.
>You claim they had taxes? You've painted yourself in a corner, this time.
I think not. They had taxes - before and after.
>>>He created a character. He claimed that this character is Hispanic.
>>>Therefore this character, however much his acts conflict with what you
>>>consider Hispanic, is Hispanic.
>>I am an American. I say so. Therefore I am. Same "logic".
>#1: Hispanic is a race.
No it is not.
>American is a culture.
That happens to vary and the dominant strain is associated
with one particular racial group.
>The way you act
>cannot change your race. Mannie's skin brownish (Hispanic [race]) therefore
>he is Hispanic (race). The identity principle.
Mannies skin is no colour at all because he is a fictional character.
I am American because I say so. How can you prove I am not?
Joseph Askew
>In article <2bkjbr$d...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>Penal colony?
>>Nothing like the Moon. This I believe was drawn from US history
>>not ours. We had a very different system.
>I don't think you know much about the US. In general, when people
>think about a penal colony becoming a nation the example that is used
>is Australia. Although some criminals were sent to the US they were a
>small minority.
Georgia was founded specifically as a penal colony. I can't help
what other people say. Our penal colony past was very different
to that of the US and to that presented in tMiaHM. You might as
well say that the convict bit was taken from Stalinist history.
Equally relevant.
>>Not very well I couldn't. I shall not try.
>>The US *does* have a culture - that is why
>>the French want films exempted from GATT and I trust them to know
>>culture when they see it :-)
>Since you mark this with a smiley I assume it is a joke and not a
>serious response. Do you have a serious response to my question?
Nope. I can't define a culture in a news post. And if I did it
would fail to get general acceptance and provide new opportunities
for flames. Nonetheless the US has one.
>>O.K. Poor choice of words. However all the cities were fairly
>>clearly founded by one nation or the other. Luna City was the
>>one that the US founded (by inference at least)
>Could you please point me to something in the book that leads to this
>inference?
Nope. I am not going to argue over it either. I suppose that as
tMiaHM was part of a larger series I could point to _the_Man_Who_
Sold_the_Moon_ but I am not going to fight over it. If you disagree
then please feel free to do so.
>>>Please make up your mind. First you claim that everyone in charge is
>>>an American. Then you claim that none of them are non-Europeans.
>>Welcome to the wonderful world of racial euphemism.
>So what do you mean? White? White American? American?
Of European descent.
>>Is it? Says who? His classification is exactly the problem. For
>>his own reasons RAH decided to give him a mixed racial background.
>>Why I can't say - perhaps he wanted to make a racial harmony point.
>>However if you ignore the bits that tell you his background I think
>>you could not infer it. Indeed the assumptino would be that he was
>>a White American Middle Class male.
>Don't his problems with Ground-hog racism count? What would you look
>for to convince you that he was an authentic mulatto?
His problems with "racism" on the Earth (and racism is not his
problem but rather those opposed to racism) is exactly the reason
RAH made him nonWhite in my opinion. RAH wanted to have a go at
those opposed to Racism and fighting segregation and so invented a
Black character whom he could hide his behind and foist his views
upon.
>>>Professor Bernardo de La Paz is also pretty clearly South American,
>>>not European.
>>Is he? How so? His manners are exactly European in an old fashioned
>>sort of way.
>So are those of many upper class Latin Americans. I've met them.
So this makes him "clearly South American"? I think not.
>Great. So you don't see how anyone could get the impression that
>white Americans outnumber everyone else. I agree. I don't think the
>book gives you enough info to tell.
The book actually provides population data that can be interpreted
in various ways. No way are Americans white or otherwise in the
majority. 1 billion in the North American Directorate.
>>Let's list all the people mentioned then shall we?
>Ok.
>Stuart LaJoie is a Brit, the Prof is Brazilian(?),
Is he?
>Wyoh is an
>American, that's all I remember. Would anyone else like to contribute?
Terence Sheehan was an American.
Wolfgang Korsakov was educated at Oxford.
"Comrade Clayton" Watanabe was mostly Japanese.
Finn Neilson has a European name, claims special knowledge of America
but no origin given.
Anyone care to name any others?
>Note that the Professor was Brazilian, one of the countries that the
>US has not had bad relations with.
The Professor does not speak Portuguese once but does speak Spanish.
He uses Spanish spellings for various trite terms like "Senor". It has
been claimed he was arrested in Lima.
Joseph Askew
>In article <2brrs8$m...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>1) "The British have a long history of meddling in US politics and
>>> economy...".
>>Again no meddling. Did they bring down a President? Did they form
>>policy in Washington? Did they interfere in politics *at*all*in*
>>any*form*? So where was their meddling?
>Gee, you seem to have conceded Sigurd's "meddling in the US economy"
>claim.
I do not think so somehow. An example of any meddling in the
US economy? Investment is not meddling. Causing, say, the Great
Depression is.
>As for the politics part, if the subtleties of economic
>influence in the political field elude you, perhaps you'll recall an
>outright war (the War of 1812), or later squabbles over the borders of
>the Oregon Territory. Hardly apolitical episodes.
So by your standard the Mexicans have meddled in US politics how
many times? Three or four? The Spanish too once. All those dratted
Indians? This is being silly. None of this is meddling in US politics
Joseph Askew
>>>Huh? You ask why he deliberately engineered events to take place on
>>>the magic date, and you admit that he later disclosed his ulterior
>>>motives (the propaganda benefits) for doing so. Sounds to me like he
>>>was out to influence US opinion the whole time (who else would July 4th
>>>propaganda have any effect on?). Or are you saying that the date was a
>>>mere coincidence?
>>No I don't do any such thing. I wish you would stick to what I
>>actually do say.
>No need to get petulant, as I didn't claim you said that; I merely
>*asked* if that's what you meant to say. A simple "no" will suffice.
You say specifically I said that he later disclosed his ulterior motives.
I have said no such thing. Stick to what I do say will you please.
No the date was not a coincidence IMHO.
>Someone has already pointed out that the text of the book itself
>explicitly refutes your hypothesis that the Prof didn't know in
>advance about the significance of the date.
I have never said he did not know the significance of the date.
He had read the D of I I assume.
Joseph Askew
>In article <2bk1d0$n...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>,
>Joseph Askew <jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
>>I know I am going to regret asking but bigoted how?
>This is probably a mistake on my part, but I'll jump in here against my
>better judgement.
Yeah probably is you know.
>Bigoted in that you are treating each specific "race" as a monolithic block,
>rather than a collection of individuals sharing certain _physical_ attributes
>(skin color being the prime one, at least in the debate that I've read).
I would deny that I am doing any such thing. I think that this is an
interpretation that many who disagree with me are very fond of but I
do not either hold to it or express it regularly.
>While it may be true that there are certain attitudes that are more _likely_
>to be held by a certain ethnic group, assuming that either 1) everybody who
>holds those attitudes is a member of that ethnic group, or 2) that anybody
>who does not hold those attitudes is not _really_ a member of that ethnic
>group, despite whatever other defining characteristics they share with the
>members of that group is not justified, and comes perilously close to being
>racist, as it is currently defined.
That is all fine too.
I still think that RAH characters express American culture so often
and so throughly to the exclusion of everything else that they are
and can only be Americans. I do not readily see the connection with
what you have just written.
>To put it another way: If I, as a white male American, were to assert that
>only persons holding a certain set of political views were _really_ Americans,
>I would be branded a racist and run off this campus faster than this article
>will make it to your site.
Probably true.
>Even if I were to assert that these attitudes were
>restriced to White Male Americans, and that, regardless of skin color,sex and
>citizenship, anybody disagreeing with these attitudes was not a _real_ WMA, I
>would catch Hell.
True as well.
>While you may be ascribing some positive attitudes to "_real_" Hispanics, or
>Islamic Fundamentalists, the statements which have been pointed out as
>"bigoted" in this thread are really not different in kind from assertions that
>"all Mexican-Americans are illegal immigrants," or "all Poles are stupid."
I disagree with this. The last charge of bigotry was made because I
said RAH "made" the Professor a Latino. As for the views expressed
otherwise I am not saying that a specific view can only be held by a
specific group, nor am I saying that a specific group cannot hold an
alternative opinion, what I am saying is that RAH characters all hold
opinions that are more or less exclusively American, they do not hold
or at least express alternative views of any sort at any time except
those of the author himself and thus there are no real grounds for
making the assumption that RAH writes about nonWhites. He does not,
he writes about Americans only he sometimes calls them nonWhites. In
no sense can tMiaHM be said to be about Latin American politics, it
is about American politics and where they went wrong EVEN though the
characters are often not American and the setting is on the Moon.
>(please note, before you bust out the napalm, that I am in no way accusing
>you of holding such attitudes, or anything like them.
Dammit I was looking forward to that napalm.
>I will agree with you that Heinlein's characters, at least his heroes, all
>seem to be rather similar, and in fact, at least in many of his later books,
>seem to be the same character arbitrarily assigned a different name. However,
Right. Fine so far.
>I would say that this results directly from Heinlein's purpose in writing
>many of these books (at least, a purpose beyond "tell a good story" or "make
>a few fast bucks"): He was promoting a rather specific set of political and
>social ideas (which also come across quite clearly in the non-fiction essays
>of his which I have read). As a means of promoting these ideas, all of his
>heroes hold this same set of beliefs, and in consequence "sound" very similar
>when they are discoursing on politics or morality.
Great so far too. His choices for race must be assumed to further his
politics or his money making as they do not serve the plot too well.
>And, among these beliefs was the idea that the race of a person was not in
>any way a significant factor in determining their worth, any more than hair
>or eye color would be.
No problem with this. Except RAH ddi not seem to think this about
Russians. All of them being bastards in his opinion (Well, my
opinion of his opinion)
>A person was defined as "good," i.e. "qualified to be
>the hero of one of these books," on the basis of their beliefs.
Yep.
>To reinforce
>this, the race (and in some cases, sex) of the main characters are assigned
>pretty randomly.
Now I disagree. Race is assigned with deliberate purpose. As is gender.
_Friday_ is about many things, is it without doubt a chance for RAH to
express his opinion on the proper role for women and on the need for
family life. To do so requires a female character. tMiaHM provides a
chance to express an opinion on race, thus a Black is needed. _ST_
is about aggression and Imperialism among other things - naturally
the hero is a Philippino - a US colony and the scene of the worst
Imperialist attrocities between Hitler and Genghiz Khan. This is not
by chance - he wishes to excuse and apologies for the US and does so
through a Philippino - indirectly.
>Again, I will grant that in this set of beliefs are many ideas that are drawn
>from American culture. In particular, Heinlein seems very attached to the ideas
>of Jefferson and some ideas which would be classed as being "Libertarian."
Alright.
>However, there are some very significant divergences from American culture as
>well, particularly Heinlein's constant railing against the broad Puritanical
>streak which runs right down the back of American political culture like the
>white stripe on a skunk (OK, so there are my views on the same issue...).
Yep I'll buy that too. But this does not make it any less American.
Over here we don't have the same problems, we don't rail against it.
He did not like a particular aspect of US life - that does not
mean he rejected it outright only that he emphasised certain
alternative aspects.
>To claim, however, that this makes these characters "White Male Americans" is
>not justified.
Well I think it is.
>They may bear a strong cultural resemblence to Americans, but
>they are, in general, a distinct _cultural_ group (culturally Heinleinian?).
A distinct cultural group of Americans then. They certainly aren't
Germans, they aren't Russians or Japanese either. They are a certain
type of American living a certain type of American life with a certain
type of American attitude. They are partly created out of Heinlein's
own mind but they are never, not the main characters anyway, based on
alternative views, countries, cultures or societies.
Don Meyer
primary influence in the area of racial prejudice. The message I got,
loud and clear, was "People are people. Prejudice is stupid".
I credit him with undoing much of the bigotry taught me by my father
(a good man, but a product of his culture -- in which bigotry was very
common, sad to say).
It really doesn't matter whether his characters were genuine WASPS,
genuine Arabs or genuine Martians. His point was as clear to me as a
13-year old kid as it is today, twenty years later.
Don
--
Capri 18 "Muddlin' Through" Opinions expressed are personal.
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>. . . Furthermore it proves an excuse for Heinlein to
>take the odd pot shot at those opposed to racism. In particular Mannie says
>that "Is a mixed up place in another way; they care about skin colour - by
>making a point of how they *don't* care.....Think I prefer a place as openly
>racist as India, where if you aren't Hindu, you're nobody - except that
>Parsees look down on Hindus and vica versa" The odd thing about this is that
>the counter example RAH picks is not a racial problem. It is a religious
>dispute.
. . . well, speaking of distortions.
First of all, this is not a "pot shot at those opposed to racism"; it is a pot
shot at those pretending to be color-blind while in fact continually and
painfullly aware of the skin color of the people they're dealing with but all
the time trying (unsuccessfully) to hide it. This is a very distinct subset of
the population, and while some of those who fit this description are in fact
"opposed to racism" others are just as definitely *not* but adopting protective,
ahhh, coloration.
Second, if you think the difference between the various Indian groups is *not*
racial, you are ignorant of the ethnic history involved. There is as much
ethnic difference between these groups as there is between, say, a German Jew
and a Prussian Junker...if not far more.
>One of Mannies
>grandparents came from South Africa but of course to say "I prefer a place
>as openly racist as South Africa" does not quite sound as nice.
Not to mention -- who knows? Maybe by the time Mannie's grampa came to the
Moon that particular issue had been resolved. God knows, it *can* happen,
unlikely though it seems. . .
>This book
>was written in 1966. Before Blacks could vote in the US and while the civil
>rights protests were still going on.
Sir, your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance. Blacks were allowed
to vote in the US nearly a century before 1966.
While there were problems and barriers to blacks voting in *some* *parts* of
the US (and not necessarily just the Deep South), that's not what you said;
you made a clear and unmitigated statement that in 1966 Blacks were not yet
allowed to vote in the US.
I'm just curious whether this is arrogant ignorance or an arrogant lie?
>When it comes to race RAH says through this character that he prefers the
>open racism of Governor Wallace to the Civil Rights beliefs of President
>Kennedy.
Well, no. The character Mannie says (and it is difficult to impute any specific
belief to Heinlein through his characters; it is almost always possible to find
another character who says something quite different, and the accurate statement
is "Heinlein has this character say," with no imputation of agreement) that he
prefers the honesty of racists like Governors Wallace and Maddox to the false
tolerance of many people who act like they don't see any difference between
blacks and whites -- when a more honest solution, at least in the US, is an
acceptance and cherishing of cultural differences; true color-blindness would be
a serious intellectual dishonesty.
Mannie, however, comes from a culture (the Moon) where forced intermingling --
"get along or perish" economics -- have created a society in which race truly
doesn't matter; in which these cultural differences were pretty much purged by
the creation of a new and radically different society. This clearly could not/
would not happen in any normally-visualized colony; Heinlein forces this by
using the (historically justifiable) model of a penal colony.
(And before you misinterpret *that*, "historically justifiable" merely means
that the speculation of a penal colony is historically justifiable, not that
history justifies the actual *use* of penal colonies in either my eyes or
Heinlein's.)
Bob Goudreau
>In article <1993Nov12.1...@dg-rtp.dg.com> goud...@robin.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes:
>>In article <2brrs8$m...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>
>>>>1) "The British have a long history of meddling in US politics and
>>>> economy...".
>
>>>Again no meddling. Did they bring down a President? Did they form
>>>policy in Washington? Did they interfere in politics *at*all*in*
>>>any*form*? So where was their meddling?
>
>>Gee, you seem to have conceded Sigurd's "meddling in the US economy"
>>claim.
>
>I do not think so somehow. An example of any meddling in the
>US economy? Investment is not meddling.
Then what the heck *is* a good example of economic meddling, if
owning and excercising control over large portions of the economy
doesn't qualify? (BTW, such meddling is not necessarily *bad*; call
it "involvement" if you want to put a more positive spin on it. I
just don't see how one can deny that such involvement exists.)
> Causing, say, the Great Depression is.
Eh? Who are you saying caused the Depression, and what relevance
does it have anyway?
>>As for the politics part, if the subtleties of economic
>>influence in the political field elude you, perhaps you'll recall an
>>outright war (the War of 1812), or later squabbles over the borders of
>>the Oregon Territory. Hardly apolitical episodes.
>
>So by your standard the Mexicans have meddled in US politics how
>many times? Three or four? The Spanish too once. All those dratted
>Indians? This is being silly. None of this is meddling in US politics
Right -- the examples you cited are instances where the US generally
meddled in *other* countries' politics. Get the picture now?
David Rysdam
>In article <drysda02.753071681@ursa> drys...@ursa.calvin.edu (David Rysdam) writes:
>>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>You are missing the point. *I* do not consider you as an Australian.
>>>The rest of Australia probably doesn't either. Neither does the rest of
>>>the United States as far as I know. Jefferson was NOT considered a Brit
>>>by himself, by the rest of America's population, by the English and by
>>>everyone I know of since except you. How can you say he was?
>>My point is: It doesn't matter if you are considered as part of a certain
>>culture. What culture were you (or J.) raised in?
>No it does not. What matters is what you are considered. Alexander
>Graham Bell immigrated from Scotland (ie was raised in Scot culture)
>but went to the US. Was he a great American inventor or not?
Now, you are attempting to confuse citizenship with culture. In this
example, Bell is a citizen of America, while being a cultural
representative of Scotland, and a racial representative of 'white'.
>>>>>The Authority was not a business but an arm of the FN. The Authority
>>>>>was a government organisation chartered by the FN and under its control.
>>>>Authority was a business. This is extremely clear.
>>>Not to me. Page references. Since when are the two incompatible anyway?
>>>If you have evidence of the Authority being a private company let see it.
>>Evidence
>>#1: Reference page 213 (among others) to Loonies as being
>>'client-employees' of Authority. Not citizens or anything remotely political.
>Nothing that would not imply it was an Arm of the FN either.
>>#2: Page 212 Authority's 'trusteeship'.
>So? Businesses don't have trusteeships.
I beg to differ. It is governments that do not have trusteeships.
>>#3: Page 183 "...Luna Authority [is] a non-political trusteeship charged
>>with the solemn duty..."
>ie not a business.
ie, definitely not the gov't and probably a business.
>>#4: Page 183 "Authority [is] older than Federated Nations, deriving
>>_charter (my emphasis) from an older international body..."
>ie it was an amr of (I would guess) the UN.
No, it derives it's _charter_ from the gov't. It was not created by,
with, or for an older international body.
>>#5: Numerous references to the lack of taxes. _All_ gov'ts tax. And
>>before you say this is more evidence of Libertarianism (for whatever
>>reason) note that Authority are the bad guys--Not something the supposedly
>>Libertarian RAH would write.
>Lack of taxes? They paid an air tax didn't they?
No. Paraphrase: "Companies on Luna charge for everything and are
sticklers about getting what is coming to them." Now it is true that
Mannie (I think, and Colin Campbell does in any case) mentions their
quarterly air charges. But they are giving the people in charge money for
a clearly defined and individualized return product.
>>>In Virginia. In the eighteenth century. American colonial.
>>I.e: British.
>The rest of the world does not agree with you.
In what way?
>>>Surrogate mother? The reason she hated the Authority. Bundling. Marriage.
>>>Persuasion of Greg (perhaps he was gay.) The Profs behaviour. What more
>>>do you want?
>>These are all direct references to sex. You can't use those, remember?
>No they are not. They imply gender they do not specify it.
90% of the references to Prof's race/culture are just as inspecific.
My conception of Prof's r/c is not formulated because of some sentence
that says "Prof is Hispanic." It is from these 'implications' that are
exactly analogous to the ones you use for Wyoh.
>>>But he does not quote them. He has not even heard of them otherwise
>>>he would not call TJ the first RA.
>>Could RA be defined as the collection of ideas that TJ held (which
>>collection has never been held, in toto, by anyone else before)?
>Then he got his ideas from a Dead American. As I said.
That's quite a leap in logic. He refers to TJ as holding the same ideas
that he does. It doesn't say he got his ideas from TJ.
>>>>Inasmuch as there are no taxes on Luna, they would have a hard time
>>>>supporting a standing army.
>>>Insomuch as they did have taxes they would not have had any problem.
>>You claim they had taxes? You've painted yourself in a corner, this time.
>I think not. They had taxes - before and after.
Before and after what? I'll assume you mean the revolution here. Before:
This has been addressed above (the only example you gave was 'air').
During: They were stealing the money. After: Prof. implored the
Congress not to implement a taxing scheme. It is never said what they did
about taxes in tMiaHM, but in The Cat etc, Colin Campbell points out that
there are no taxes in Luna Free State.
>Mannies skin is no colour at all because he is a fictional character.
>I am American because I say so. How can you prove I am not?
If Mannie's skin is no color because he is fictional then he does not
exist at all because he is fictional. Then there is no argument. Now we
come to your claim of being American. By your argument (not because you
say so) you _are_ an American. You talk like an American. You talk high
technology for granted (relatively) like an American. You have a very
common American first name. Your last name is not uniquely unAmerican.
By _your_ standards you are an American.
>Joseph Askew
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>The counter claim was that the Moon had something like Australian
>history. We didn't let them go . The air and food problems are of
>no importance as they are local to the Moon. They have nothing to
>do with our history. The Moon as presented in tMiaHM, as I have
>said before, is entirely American or a figment of RAH imagination.
>Well nearly entirely. Almost nothing is taken from anyone else's
>history only from America.
Well, no shit; of *course* it's a figment of Heinlein's imagination. History,
as I said in a previous article, justifies the speculation that penal colonies
may be set up in space. The rest is speculation and extrapolation.
The fundamental difference between the Lunar colonies of tMiaHM, aside from
being on the Moon, is that they are ethnically diverse from the first; whereas
the "Botany Bay" colonies of Australia were drawn from a very limited selection
of closely-related European cultures: thus the notorious racism of Australia
(e.g., the attitude toward "abos") would be as impossible to sustain -- because
it would be counter-survival -- as the equally notorious racism of America. In
the speculated case, the combination of diversity from the beginning with
extreme environmental difficulties ("the Moon is a harsh mistress") create a
get-along-or-perish situation in which the natural tendency of humans to a
"us-and-them" attitude came down simply to "us-and-the-prison-guards," with a
healthy side dish of "us-and-the-hostile-invironment."
>I think it has been pretty well decided. Exactly what was not American?
Well, for one thing, the lack of racism! Heinlein goes out of his way to make
the point that in his specualted 2076 racism is *still* a significant problem
in the US.
In point of fact, "Loonie" culture is very significantly based on Heinlein's
impressions of Australian culture received during his stay in Australia in the
course of an around-the-world voyage he and his wife took in the 1950s; for more
information on this, consult the book TRAMP ROYAL, published last year, his
single attempt to write a travel book. A single example: the description of the
Loonies as "interested in beer, betting, women, and work -- in that order" is in
fact a word-for-word quote from a description of Australians during that trip.
(I may be misremembering, but I *think* an Australian gave him that phrase at
one point while trying to explain his culture.)
>Watanabe was claimed to be Japanese by culture and his race was
>specifically meantioned as mixed. The Chinese were not mentioned
>at all by name, by race, by culture or otherwise.
Now that is *utter* nonsense. . . unless you think that the people Mannie
constantly refers to as "Chinee" are somehow different from Chinese. Among
other specifics, the brothers whom Wyoh Knott had married earlier in her life
were definitely called Chinese.
--Dan'l, who knows using facts in an
argument is fighting dirty, so sue me!
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>This is a very valid criticism. I was not being entirely serious to
>a not very serious post. It happens that Free Love does not appear
>in Heinlein's work.
Well, see, there's this book called STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, in which the
members of the "Church of All Worlds" practice something that looks an *awful*
lot like "Free Love." Unless you're willing to make the *highly* dubious claim
that all members of the CAW should be considered members of one single marriage,
you've clearly either never read or managed to forget Heinlein's single best-
known book.
>He does not approve of it. Sex before marriage
>perhaps. Sexy with mulitple partners before marriage perhaps as well.
>Sex outside of a marriage? I think not.
Well, let's see. You seem to impute the values of Heinlein's viewpoint
characters to him, so. . . to give just a few examples. . . Lazarus Long, in
TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE, commits adultery (with his own mother) at a subjective
time when he is personally "happily" married and an objective time when she
is; the viewpoint characters of THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST-- indulge in various
forms of wife-swapping and extramarital breeding (though, admittedly, they all
wind up part of the "Long" mass-marriage-family-clan-thing); numerous members
of the above-mentioned Church of All Worlds are married prior to joining it and
do not have their marriages dissolved upon joining up.
>Of course Heinlein wrote all
>sorts of crap that he thought would sell so it is hard *for*both*of*
>us* to make generalisations about what he believed. I shall do so none
>the less.
Thus demonstrating your intellectual integrity, eh, Mr. Askew?
>>Askew writes:
>>> You mean you knew an Asian with a Spanish name and did not assume
>>> she was a Philippino? You might have been wrong but that surely
>>> was a perfectly normal assumption.
Absolutely. After all, there are no Guamanians. And we all know taht there is
no ethnic difference (despite the previous writer's comment about her being
"darker" than a Chinese) between a Pacific Islander and an Asian -- after all,
you feel perfectly content with describing a PI as an "Asian." Truly, Mr Askew,
your asperity in these matters astounds me. How do you do it, Holmes?
>>Right. Their culture is US American mainstream. But what of the race (which
>>was the issue) - is this person WHITE? I think not. Similarly, Manny seems
>>to be culturally a Loonie, racially a non-white.
>
>Seems to be? There ain't no such thing as a Loonie in case you missed
>that one. He is culturally an American.
Of course, if by "there ain't no such thing as a Loonie," you mean that there is
no such thing in the *objective* world, then of course, you are right; but then,
there is also no such thing in that world as Manuel Garcia O'Kelley, and for you
to say he "is" culturally an American, then you're full of pinto beans.
If, contrariwise, you mean that in the discursive world of tMiaHM, there "ain't
no such thing as a Loonie," I have to suggest that you don't have the first clue
as to how to read science fiction, for this is incredible, arrant nonsense.
Mannie is very definitely a product of an imagined culture which is unlike any
known on Earth today. To be quite specific, his attitudes towards race, sex,
marriage, and many other things are *signally* non-American -- as Heinlein goes
out of his way to demonstrate in Mannie's encounters with Americans.
--Dan'l, what book did
this guy read, anyway?
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>>#5: Numerous references to the lack of taxes. _All_ gov'ts tax. And
>>before you say this is more evidence of Libertarianism (for whatever
>>reason) note that Authority are the bad guys--Not something the supposedly
>>Libertarian RAH would write.
>
>Lack of taxes? They paid an air tax didn't they?
Nope. They paid a fee, as in "for services rendered," a quarterly payment for
air. You were free to find alternative sources of air if you liked.
Note: I am *not* arguing that Authority was not governmental in nature. This
is one case in which Mr. Askew has -- amazingly -- gotten his facts right. But
the governmental equivalent to the air fees is not a tax, but a tariff, as for
example on a turnpike.
>Mannies skin is no colour at all because he is a fictional character.
>I am American because I say so. How can you prove I am not?
Because you are a fictional character?
(Actually, your ignorance of American culture is sufficient proof for anyone
with any actual knowledge of that culture.)
--Dan'l, moderately
amused. . .
Dan'l DanehyOakes
One last point. . .
Despite his astounding command of misinformation, Mr Askew is very close to
correct about one of his major points. . . indeed, it may be his single main
point in all this.
He says that Heinlein's characters are all essentially Americans.
This is close to the truth, but -- pardon the pun -- a bit askew. Heinlein used
America as his cultural template. He was himself profoundly American, and was
quite proud of it in a way most Americans have forgotten how to be these days.
His "norm" for human behavior was what he saw around him; thsi was, as I say,
his "template." Since he lived all his life in and among Americans, that
template was indeed American.
He varied that template -- sometimes varied it a great deal. But wherever he
did not specifically vary it, the unvaried parts of a culture or a character
came out looking like America or an American.
This is, it may as well be stated right here, a weakness in Heinlein's ability
to create characters and cultures. A writer with more finesse in these matters
would have found that changing some aspect over *here* in a character or culture
inevitably causes these other aspects *here* *here* and *here* to change in
response.
But this is a bit too harsh. First of all, RAH did recognize this -- a little
bit.
Second, and perhaps more important, the ability of more skilled writers to make
more radically different cultures and characters is in significant part
dependent upon the rhetorical devices invented by the writers of the '30s and
*especially* Heinlein for implying cultural differentia without breaking the
text for long exposition. The canonical example usually given is Heinlein's
sentence, "the door dilated," which, as Samuel R. Delany observes, not only
produces in the mind of the experienced and skilled *reader* of SF the image of
the dilating door, but begins a process of exfoliation in which such readers
begin to question the engineering level that produces reliable dilating doors
(and are they mechanical, chemical, biological, or what); the society that finds
such doors desirable, aesthetically and/or practically; the conditions that
produce such a society, etc.
Ideally, each detail about a character or culture in an SF story or novel will
interact with each other detail to produce in the reader's mind an explosive
process of constructing worlds out of words. The classic example of an
explication of this process is Samuel R. Delany's THE AMERICAN SHORE, a longish
book which follows at what Delany calls a very shallow level this process
through an SF short story by Thomas M. Disch, showing how each detail is acted
upon by the mind of, at any rate, one highly skilled SF reader.
That Heinlein, who learned his trade in the '30s, was not able to avail himself
of the richness of technique developed after this time is a sign that he did not
grow with the field as a writer. He *did*, in fact, grow as a writer, but his
growth did not parallel that of the majority of the SF field; in fact, his
growth was in other direction entirely, largely having to do with the ability
to produce novels that used the "thought-experiment" technique of SF to
objectify speculations not in the hard sciences or sociology, but in philosophy.
(Whether his philosophical speculations are in any way valid is *way* outside
the scope of *this* discussion.)
--Dan'l, I think I am,
therefore I am, I think.
Chris Croughton
me...@vitek.com (Don Meyer) writes:
>This thread strikes me as very odd.
Really? It strikes me as odd that there were 12 (I think) long articles
be jaskew in a row, all on the same thread and none making much sense.
I wonder if he also writes those hundreds of Jordan posts...
>You see, I credit Heinlein as a
>primary influence in the area of racial prejudice. The message I got,
>loud and clear, was "People are people. Prejudice is stupid".
That's the message that I, and most people I know, got as well. And not
just race prejudice, but any assumptions about people based on
irrelevant data (gender, sexual preferences, religion, race, number of
limbs, etc.).
***********************************************************************
* ch...@keris.demon.co.uk * *
* chr...@cix.compulink.co.uk * FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) *
* 10001...@compuserve.com * *
***********************************************************************
And streames of purple bloud new dies the verdant fields.
>
> I'd like some help and recomendations please!
>
> If anyone has read any novels/short stories which feature forests and
> have a pagan element or atmosphere in them, then I'd love to hear
> about them!
>
> Books I've read so far are;
>
> The Devil in a Forest
> Mythago Wood
> Lavondys
> The Bone Forest
>
> and two more I can't remember the name of right now! (useful huh?)
>
> I *think* they were by Charles DeLint.
>
> Any suggestions greatly appreciated!
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Disclaimer: You know it.
> "Hey! Wait a minute, aren't you..." |
> | Email: j...@dsbc.icl.co.uk
What????
nope, those are Robert Holdstock, except maybe the first title, which I'm
unfamiliar with. You could try _The Dreaming Place_ by DeLint, it's somewhat
young, but still a good read, and is actually full of Native American
mythology. Most of Delint's stuff falls into the urban fantasy realm; fairies
and elves-- and more often hobs and the unseelie court-- in cities. Tho'
certainly excellent, and well worth finding, especially a few of his short
stories. Definitely read _Cloven Hooves_ by Megan Lindholm; very pagan,
about a girl growing up in the wilds of alaska who is befriended by Pan, and
what happens when she grows up-- it took me two tries to get into it, but I
thought it was pretty good nevertheless. And-- shameless plug here for my two
all-time favorites-- John Crowley's _Little, Big_ --which is on the edge of a
forest, and full of a rather ethereal magical element-- and _Moonwise_ by Greer
Ilene Gilman (there are rumours of an incipient sequel) which is about-- no, i
can't do it justice, it's too good. But read it.
well, hope this helped--
--wren.
silve...@kenyon.edu, helplessly behind on the net...
David Bofinger
> The fundamental difference between the Lunar colonies of tMiaHM, aside from
> being on the Moon, is that they are ethnically diverse from the first;
One other critical difference: the environment. If someone got away
from Botany Bay they could make at least a stab at surviving with zero
capital, particularly if they were fortunate enough to make friendly
contact with an aboriginal group. Port Arthur -- probably the toughest
penal colony -- was set up on a peninsula with an isthmus only a
couple of hundred yards across for just this reason. On the moon this
sort of escape is hopeless, you need to make a tunnel to live in and
an entire life-support aparatus, even if that's just plants you need
to take a lot of varieties to have a decent diet.
This is the part I find least plausible in TMIAHM. An environment like
the moon, where any breakdown in the social fabric will be
catastrophic and people cannot "vote with their feet", at least not
easily, and a large percentage of the population are accustomed to
solving problems by violence, seems to me the least likely place for
the anarchic society Heinlein described to evolve. I'd expect
strong-man feudalism based around control of life-support resources.
In other words a vaguely American-like evolution in a setting with
features that should make it completely distinct. You could take that
as some sort of support for Joseph Askew's position I suppose. Not
that I think Heinlein was unusually (for a writer of his time and
genre) unable to transcend his own culture.
> [racism] would be as impossible to sustain
But the separate colonies were ethnically distinct. It's easy to
imagine Novyleningradniks banding together to survive but feeling
superior to the Chinese inhabitants of Hong Kong in Luna.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger AARNet: dxb...@huxley.anu.edu.au
Snail: Dept. of Theoretical Physics, RSPhysSE, ANU, ACT, 2601
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Friedman
>In article <1993Nov8.2...@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfri...@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <2bk08c$n...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>and the fact that he is called
>>>"Stinky" ought to tell you something.
>>What? Are you suggesting that "Stinky" is derogatory?
>No I am saying it is an Americanism.
Well of course it is an Americanism!! The people who gave him the
nick-name were Americans. I've got a friend originally from Hong Kong
whose nick-name is Winnie. She got it from Americans. It didn't make
her an American. That came later.
>>>It did not get implemented as they BOTH wanted. So one of the main
>>>characters - supposedly a Latin American - gets *all* his political
>>>attitudes from a dead Anglo.
>>I think this is an appalling misreading of the book. Prof gets his
>>political attitudes from himself. He recognizes that Jefferson had
>>some similar attitudes and that the Constitution that Jefferson wrote
>>could be used to produce a nation that Prof would like.
>Noone gets their attitudes from their self. They get them from
>the larger group. You are taught your attitudes as you grow up.
>Some of them you may reject, some you may pick up elsewhere, but
>it is very rare for people to have an entire political philosophy
>worked out all by yourself.
And only mindless robots get all, or even a majority, of their
political attitudes from any one person. Thinking people synthesize
their own beliefs from a combination of beliefs created by other people.
>>>Not a word about Bolivar or Peron or anyone else from outside the US.
>>Why should there be?
>Because if you are a Latino you usually learn to think of Bolivar
>the same way Americans think of Washington. Look at the fuss over
>the novel written about him last year. His life, philosophy and
>attitudes would have been (as they are) present in any discussion
>the Professor had about politics when he was growing up. See how
>long an American can discuss politics without mentioning the Founding
>Fathers or the Constitution.
Excuse me, but Washington rarely intrudes on modern political
discussions. As for the Constitution, that's modern law, not 200 year
old history.
>>Bolivar was a revolutionary and a Latin American
>>nationalist. The revolutionary bit was done better by Lenin, Mao,
>>Giap, and Che Guevera.
>Each to his own I guess.
If you disagree, please tell me why. For example, what has Bolivar
written on the theory of revolution that compares to any of the people
I have mentioned?
>>The Latin American nationalist part is
>>irrelevant to Luna.
>But of course the American Rational Anarchist part is not?
Where do you get this idea that Rational Anarchism is American? It's
definitely Heinleinian - Lazaraus Long, for example, is clearly a
Rational Anarchist, but it certainly isn't American. If it was we
would have a lot fewer laws.
>>Similar arguments apply to Peron. Peron ruled
>>with a cult of personality. Peronism without Peron, or at least his
>>memory, is kind of pointless.
>The present government of Argentina would probably disagree.
The present government of Argentina has Peronism based on the memory
of Peron. Are there any significant Peronist parties outside of
Argentina?
>>>Notice that the Professor did not
>>>even update the language of the Declaration of Independence. Well,
>>>at least the horrid "inalienable" bit anyway.
>>Of course not. He was laying on the symbolism as thick as he could.
>For whom? "he" as in RAH perhaps.
For the American public. It's documented in the description of the
congressional session in which the D of I is approved.
>>>You mean he insisted that the Government get out of the way of
>>>private industry in developing the catapult? An entirely common
>>>libertarian attitude.
>>Yup. Except he pitched the catapult to countries and it was pretty
>>clear that it was the countries he needed to convince.
>Only for permission and eminent domain.
Eminent domain is hardly a Libertarian doctrine.
>Notice that the African
>one was built before the Chinese one. I assume that is a reference
>to a totally private enterprise beating one with some government
>involvement but I could be wrong. It is not spelt out.
No. It isn't even hinted at. I'm not surprised that you think
Heinlein says things he didn't - you seem to be using your imagination
to add major sections to his books.
>>>His faith is in technology developing not
>>>in government. They did not have the catapult because of the Lunar
>>>Authority not because the governments of the Earth had to be convinced.
>>Wrong. They did not have the catapult because it was not needed by
>>anyone who was willing to pay for it. In fact, the absence of the
>>catapult was a classic free market failure.
>They needed government and specifically the Authority to
>get out of the way of private industry. If you have a page
>reference otherwise I'm happy to discuss it.
A page reference otherwise? You're making the positive claim. You
need to present the page reference. Find the claim that the catapult
would have been created if government wasn't interfering. You can't
because Heinlein never said it. You want a page reference? Pages 1 -
400. Not a single one says that Authority needed to get out of the
way of private industry.
Michael Friedman
>In article <1993Nov12.0...@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfri...@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <2bs6s4$3...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>>Bigoted because you assume that White American and fundamentalist
>>>>Moslem or mutually exclusive.
>>>For all intents and purposes they are. That is not quite as bad
>>>as it sounds as the numbers of Anglo Islamic Fundamentalist is
>>>probably very very close to the margin of error in any census.
>>Joseph, are you claiming that to be an authentice American you need to
>>be Anglo? If that is so then by your definitions I'm not an American.
>No I claim you must have the attitudes and culture of the mainstream
>to be a member of it. Anglo is not equivalent to American although
>it comes close to White American.
Well then where the heck did Anglo Islamic Fundamentalists come from?
>>>I would assume that Freedom of Speech is an American cultural
>>>norm. I have never met an American who was not in favour of it
>>>subject to one or two minor restrictions at most. Islam calls
>>>for certain punishments for certain forms of free speech and I
>>>don't know of any Islamic country that enshrines it in their
>>>Constitution in any meaningful way (or at all actually) How
>>>many examples do you want?
>>Joseph, you've obviously never visited the Bible Belt. There are
>>plenty of places in the US where they would happily jail people for
>>blasphemy if they could get away with it. I'll admit that they
>>usually don't advocate the death penalty for blasphemy, but I think
>>that's a minor difference.
>Well I don't.
Really? In parts of Ohio they would like to lock you up if you
blaspheme. In parts of the Middle East they would like to kill you.
The Arabs may be a bit more violent, but otherwise I think the
essential point is the same.
>I think that the majority of Americans would actively
>oppose any change to the Constitution that made Blasphemy against
>the law. Even in the Bible Belt. Free Speech is an American cultural
>norm. They even let Communists speak and I'll bet the Bible Belt would
>have loved to kill all of them.
Joseph, I hate to break it to you, but you're wrong. The majority of
American would oppose such a change. Large segments of the
population, including majorities in some states, would support it.
Heck, I wouldn't mind a law that decrimminalized beating up Commies.
>>>>incest,
>>>Such as?
>>In half of his books. Also, technically, Ludmilla in TMIAHM.
>Which half? And you will notice that he is very careful to explain
>there was no suchg problem with Ludmilla.
The Ludmilla case was still incest by definition. As for where he has
biological incest, let me cite Time Enough for Love, The Number of the
Beast, To Sail Beyond the Sunset, and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls.
>>>>[Polygamy]
>>>Not entirely unknown in Middle America.
>>No, but hardly a cultural norm. Even the Mormons forbid it.
>Most do. However laws against it, while existing still in some
>places are, due to public pressure, no used against Mormons who
>still practise it.
Not so much public pressure as lack of willingness to have a big
howling fight on their hands. But anyway, support for polygamy is a
distinctly minority view. As before, by your definitions, can you
describe any attitude that is NOT American?
>>>>TANSTAAFL,
>>>Way of life.
>>I wish. Half of America thinks that government spending comes from heaven.
>Actually they have not adopted the opposite, they merely exempt themselves.
>"*I* deserve money from the government but those Black single Mothers? Let
>'em fend for themselves". Government spending is one of those irregular
>verbs, I am supported, he is porked, they should starve.
Wrong. Just look at the terms of public debate. It isn't "We should
take this money away from the people who earned it to do X". It is
"The government should spend money on this." The question of where
the money comes from is totally divorced from the debate.
>>>You mean killing oppressive occupying soldiery? Not what I
>>>would call unknown in Americas past is it?
>>Nope, but we didn't kill POWs.
>When? The US, like most European countries, has a poor record when
>nonWhite POW's are involved. And I don't want to start this thread.
>I have had enough of it in the past. The records for Japanese POW's
>in WW2 are there if you want to look at them
Perhaps, but it certainly isn't condoned.
>and the Indian Tecumsah
>was turned into straps for razors.
I'd love to see documentation for this.
>However in tMiaHM RAH can hardly be said to support such actions.
Really? They take no prisoners during the invasion. Warden's
body-guards get their necks broken while they are unconcious. That
ship surrenders to Mike and then gets deliberately crashed. The six
rapists are stripped, hamstrung, and turned over to the women in Complex.
>>>If you pick the right Middle America.
>>Well, if you pick the right Middle America, what CAN'T you find
>>support for?
>This is true. However RAH did not support Free Love as such in
>his early work. Perhaps aSiaSL but I will not read it so I might
>be wrong. References?
Stranger, Number of the Beast, Time Enough for Love, I Will Fear No
Evil, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, To Sail Beyond the Sunset.
>>>I don't think he particularly likes these churches but it is
>>>not hard to find Churches who believe these sort of things in
>>>Middle America. Salt Lake City for instance.
>>I don't think the Mormons compare with the Fosterites. Now, David
>>Khoresh did, but you saw what the US did to him.
>And quite a lot of people have loudly objected. Especially here
>on the net. Is there anyone who supports Reno?
Yes. The vast majority of Americans. If you get your ideas of
America from the net it is hardly surprising that they bear little
relation to reality.
>>>I assume that if someone has the characteristics that mark him/her
>>>as being an American, a stated claim to the contrary is not convincing.
>>But you have never given us a convincing description of the
>>characteristics that mark people as Americans.
>It is a little hard isn't it? If you can do an easy one, say
>what marks Eastern European Jews out uniquely, I will try for
>Americans. (Someone I read on the weekend said she thought that
>there were three things that marked you out as Jewish when she
>was growing up. Yiddish, Socialism, Not believing in God.)
I don't know Jack about Eastern European Jews, so I can't do that. But
if you can't describe what marks people as Americans then how can you
tell that Heinlein's characters are Americans?
>>>There is such a thing a culture and Philippinos have one.
>>So? There is such a thing as Eastern European Jewish culture. I know
>>virtually nothing about it. Why should Rico know any more about
>>Fillippino culture?
>Because he spoke Tagalog.
OK. Now explain why this should have a major effect on his actions.
I know some Filippinos who speak Tagalog. It doesn't seem to effect
how Americanized they are.
>>3. Answer the argument. This girl was culturally assimmilated. She
>>was also a pure-blood Filippino. If Heinlein wrote about her,
>>wouldn't you be claiming that she wasn't a real Filippino?
>That is an interesting question. Real people are different from
>fictional characters. In real life people are all sorts of things
>for all sorts of reasons. In fiction the writer has intent and
>purpose. What purpose is served by having a Philippino character?
>Perhaps it is vital to the plot, perhaps it adds a special flavour
>to the story, perhaps it is necessary for the logical coherence of
>the plot, perhaps the author felt like it or perhaps there is an
>alternative reason. I claim that RAH falls into the last two groups
>and not into any of the previous ones.
Actually, I think RAH falls into a different category. He's making a
point. Racism is stupid.
>>>>and the only times I refer to it are when I tell people that I'm
>>>>damned if I'll give up my right to own a gun
>>>I suppose if I said this was an American cultural norm I would
>>>get flamed right? It isn't an argument you see a lot of others
>>>make.
>>Well, you can argue that it's an American cultural norm if you want,
>>but given that polls show that it is a minority view I don't see how
>>you could justify your argument.
>The idea of a right to a gun is not something you find elsewhere.
Afghanistan, Somalia, some parts of Latin America.
>>>Their is in Loonies. Ambiguous I admit.
>>Well, why would you expect the Authority to do something that was not
>>in their best interest whether it is a government or a private entity?
>"Their" as in Loonies. The Authority prevented the Loonies from
>doing what was in their own best interest.
Ah. And the Loonies, of course, were eager to build a catapult on
Earth and not to ship Earth food until they could get organics back,
but Authority said no. Say what? Could you point me to something in
the book that indicated that the Loonies had any interest in an Earth
catapult?
>>>It is still a question of removing government control not adding it.
>>Really? Who is going to insist on ton-for-ton replenishment of
>>organics? Heinlein makes it clear that the farmers aren't.
>Heinlein fixed it so that the problem was solved *without* any
>government intervention. Namely he had the Professor fix things
>so that the catapult would be bombed. Not a governmental solution
>at all. Not one requiring legislative restrictions anyway.
First off, as the Prof was virtually dictator, I hardly think you can
divorce his actions from that of government. Secondly, there isn't
even a hint in the book that anyone is going to ship organics to the
Moon to cater to the Loony market. The only reason anyone is
interested at all is that the Loonies are saying "No tickee no
washee." That's being done by the government. The farmers are
willing to live with the status quo.
>>>For the Prof, Wyoh and Manuel perhaps but they hardly discuss it
>>>much in public I seem to remember.
>>No, of course not - that's part of the conspiracy. Getting back
>>organics is not economical and it is not popular. Therefore, it won't
>>get done by either government or business unless someone cheats.
>It probably doesn't get done period then.
Nope. It gets done because the government say that it must. The
government says that because of the power held by Manny, Prof, and
Wyoh. By the time they are out the policy is in place and people are
convinced.
>>>No it occurs to MO'KD afterwards that the Professors plan entailed
>>>the destruction of the catapult. Hardly strategy for the rest of
>>>them.
>>So? How does that effect the point? The Professor is part of the
>>government, not a private entrepeneur.
>No he is an individual who twists government policy.
Any government is made up of individuals who modify, twist, or
generate government policy. By your definitions nothing is government
and everything is American.
>>>Thus the governments do not get involved, the market sorts it out.
>>>Either way.
>>Exactly. Involving subsidies would be absurd no matter what your
>>attitude on government is. How would you include subsidies in this equation?
>I don't quite understand this question but subsidies are inevitable if
>the Free Market can't provide the solution.
Really? Like the subsidies we use to fund the military because the
Free Market can't provide the solution? (Or are you claiming that all
governmnet spending is a subsidy? If so, then there is a subsidy -
the funding for whatever arm of the Loony government will enforce the
ton for ton organics policy.)
>>>>Nonsense. The only "nod" that he gives to the American experience is
>>>>the use of the Declaration of Independence.
>>>Congress?
>>Plenty of countries have congresses.
>Do they? A few American colonies and quasi-colonies perhaps. They
>are not too common in Africa for example. Nor in Asia outside the
>Philippines. Nor do we have one. Nor is there one in Europe. I
>can't comment on Latin America where there are several I believe.
>It is an American terms.
They also have one in Russia. Or have they become an American quasi-colony?
>>>Rational Anarchism?
>>That's American? Huh?
>Yep.
Where do you get the idea that Rational Anarchism is American?
>>>Avoiding entangling alliances?
>>Where did you get that from?
>The Prof's last (or nearly last) words with Mannie.
That I forgot about. OK. I'll give you that.
>>>Brass cannons (I assume that is American I could be wrong)?
>>You are wrong.
>Really? Who else palys with these toys?
Most nations with medieval histories. I've seen plenty of cannons at
old forts and war memorials in Mexico, England, and France. Other
than that, we don't play with them.
>>>What is not American and also not invented? What part comes from
>>>elsewhere on
>>>Earth?
>>Just off-hand, the occupational representatives in the Congress have
>>no parallel in the US.
>Which occupational representatives?
Some of the reps in parliament apparently represented people with
particular occupations. Hong Kong has such people. We don't.
>>The Prime Minister is copied from a parliamentary system, the system
>>of ministers (the US has secretaries), the requirement that members of
>>the cabinet be in the Congress exists in the British Parliament and I
>>believe in other parliamentary systems.
>Notice that the Moon had Secretaries too. The Prime Minister was
>powerless and so not a copy from the English system.
Are you sure the Prime Minister was powerless? I didn't notice
anything on that.
>The last
>point is nearly right except of course we don't have a Congress.
Who's we? You're an Aussie, aren't you?
>>I think that's a good start.
>I don't.
Well, how many do you want?
>>>If you read their slogans you would have noticed they were
>>>firmly within Chinese tradition. Complaints about the state
>>>as a monolithic body, bureaucracy, lack of pluralism, one
>>>party state - the objections to these were couched in the
>>>traditional terminology and philosophy. Find an American who
>>>objects to a Monolithic State.
>>Actually, a lot of us do. Ever hear of Federalism?
>Different objection.
Actually, you would be surprised. The Chinese Government has sent several
delegations to various US universities and think tanks to study US
federalism.
>>>>What about someone who wanted to capture American public opinion?
>>>He would have said so. Or alternatively he might have thought
>>>of a reason why this should be necessary or required.
>>He did say so.
>No he did not.
He did. It's right there in the debate on the D of I when someone
asks why it's dated July 4 when today is July 2.
>>>Perhaps this is so. I do not quite see it that way. Odd that
>>>the libertarians on the net often recommend this book isn't it?
>>Yes. However, I'm not a Libertarian and it's not my fault if they
>>don't think about what they read.
>So you are right and alt,politics.libertarian is wrong?
Yes.
David Zink
mfri...@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <2brqu1$l...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>
jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>Only for permission and eminent domain.
>
>Eminent domain is hardly a Libertarian doctrine.
The countries he needed to convince were not Libertarian.
>>>Wrong. They did not have the catapult because it was not needed by
>>>anyone who was willing to pay for it. In fact, the absence of the
>>>catapult was a classic free market failure.
A classic free market success, he means. It was up to the Loonies to
build the earth catapult (or at least fund its being built), since they
were the ones who had a use for it. Their appropriate tactic would have
been to raise the price of what they shipped down in order to generate
the neccessary capital; their cry of `no loads down without loads up' is
also a completely appropriate tactic. And completely libertarian. Of
course, the exact balance of debts and assets is difficult to compute,
since the Earth funded the lunar catapult, and should therefore have the
right to decide whether loads should be launched or not. It is the
rebels duty to convince fellow loonies not to provide cargo for the down
trip until the earth catapult is built. However, since Earth
conscripted the lunar citizens onto the moon, it has to some extent
forgone its domain over the lunar facilities; more precisely, the
government owes the loonies reparations for past mistreatments; until
that is resolved, it is reasonable for the loonies to hold lunar
facilities as a sort of impromptu lien until equitable arrangements can
be reached. IMAO libertarianism, like capitalism in general, breaks
down when it tries to deal with issues of inheritance; in this case,
what does the earthgov owe the loonies that were born there? If the
lunar citizens were willing immigrants, then stopping down traffic could
be considered a breach of contract, and the earth would be within its
rights to just write off the investment and let the loonies starve, etc.
Even then the question of whether the innocent (and uncontracted)
children of the settlers could ethically be written off with their
parents. As it is, while Earth's responsibility is clear, the extent of
it is not.
I think Heinlein's libertarianism is as libertarian as possible; however
he does try to gloss over the problems with the libertarian ideals and
commits essentially dishonest books. eg in BEYOND THIS HORIZON he
overlooks what Steven Brust has expounded so completely: anyone can be
ambushed; no amount of personal skill with the pistol will save him.
For honest libertarianism, see Westlake's ANARCHAOS.
Michael Friedman
>>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>Now perhaps he want
>to convey an idea of the future where race did not matter. More than
>likely. I think he had other reasons as well. Consider tMiaHM. If you
>ignore the two main characters of Professor de la Paz and Manuel (and
>for simplicity's sake the Computer) the rest are almost uniformly Anglo.
>Take the Cabinet. Wyoming Davis is an American. As is Terence Sheehan.
>Stuart Rene LaJoie is of course a simple minded American stereotype of
>an British aristocrat. Wolfgang Korsakov has a German first name and a
>Russian surname but is claimed to have studied at Oxford. Anglo by
>culture and education if not by birth. Finn Nielson, like Sheehan,
>claims special knowledge of Americans although no background is given
>to my knowledge. The only other character is "Comrade Clayton" who is
>not given a first name, who is the only one refered to by his pseudonym,
>who has one tiny part of about half a page, does not speak in Cabinet
>once, does not have any lines at all to my best recollection and above
>all is Japanese - the least offense foreigner to an American in 1966.
Excuse me, but what about Europeans or Canadians? They're much less
offensive than Japanese to nativist Americans.
>A token Asian. Otherwise no Asian of any sort, no African, no other
>Europeans make any significant appearance at all.
Excuse me, but Manny is part African.
>No matter what RAH
>thought about the future tMiaMH shows a world where White Anglos are
>still very much in control and have a dominating influence.
I really don't see how you can claim this. The US is certainly one of
the most important countries in the FN, but India and China are also
very important.
>Now I still do not know why
>the Professor is claimed to be Latino. Unless RAH wanted to make a point
>about the Universal applicability of Jefferson's ideas.
Joseph, please get one thing through your head. This is something you
should learn even if you get nothing else out of this thread.
RATIONAL ANARCHISM IS NOT JEFFERSONIAN.
>By having a non
>American support these ideas he is giving them international significance
>they do not have.
Well, right now they have no real significance - I know of no
political philosopher who advocates rational anarchism, except,
perhaps, for some anarchists, the vast majority of whom are European.
>RAH is, in my opinion, trying to rescue the ideas of Jefferson and
>the man himself from accusations of inherent racism.
Where on Earth do you get this from? Jefferson's personal racism is
not even discussed. As for his ideas, I've never heard anyone claim
that they were racist until now. They hardly need rescuing.
>By presenting a world
>where racism does not exist and one where people have been left alone by
>meddling governments, a world based roughly on Libertarian principles, he
>is claiming that racism exists in the US because Jefferson was not listened
>to.
Where is this claim made? Don't you think it would be more accurate
to say that he says that racism exists in the US because we haven't
had a good enough melting pot, but that the Moon, under the conditions
he posits, would have a good enough melting pot?
>No place in tMiaHM for the laws Jefferson tried to
>pass making living with a Black punishable by death or worse.
Could you please document your claim that Jefferson tried to make
living with a Black punishable by death or worse?
>Furthermore it [tMIAHM] proves an excuse for Heinlein to
>take the odd pot shot at those opposed to racism.
Really? In a book where one of his big points is that racism is
stupid? In a book where the most blatant racist he describes is a
stupid venal Southern sherriff who arrests the main character because
of the color range in his family? In a book where one of the first
heroes is a Black, Shorty Mkrum? In a book where the clearly dark
main character is married to a white American who was previously
married to two Chinese brothers?
>In particular Mannie says
>that "Is a mixed up place in another way; they care about skin colour - by
>making a point of how they *don't* care.....Think I prefer a place as openly
>racist as India, where if you aren't Hindu, you're nobody - except that
>Parsees look down on Hindus and vica versa" The odd thing about this is that
>the counter example RAH picks is not a racial problem. It is a religious
>dispute.
Joseph, you apparently aren't very familiar with India. India has
both caste and religion. The religion issue was not a big deal when
Heinlein wrote, and he ignored it. The caste issue, however was
major. The Hindus have internal castes, and they have their own ideas
of where non-Hindus fit in between those castes.
>RAH has a lot of other examples to choose from. One of Mannies
>grandparents came from South Africa but of course to say "I prefer a place
>as openly racist as South Africa" does not quite sound as nice.
Probably because he never visited South Africa. India played a large
part in the book.
>This book
>was written in 1966. Before Blacks could vote in the US
Jeeze. You really don't know much about the US, do you?
>and while the civil
>rights protests were still going on. Naturally he does not say "I prefer a
>place as openly racist as Alabama" either. Yet both examples are a better
>indicator of what he means than India which is not even a racial
>dispute.
1. It's pretty clear that he is hypothesizing a US where there is
legal equality. That means no open racism, not even in Alabama, and
2. As before, the issues in India between Hindus and others have
racial as well as religious components.
>When it comes to race RAH says through this character that he prefers the
>open racism of Governor Wallace to the Civil Rights beliefs of President
>Kennedy.
Yes. As he points out, at least Wallace was honest (at least until he
switched positions and started going after the black vote.)
>And he does so very cleverly. He uses India as an example to
>hide behind. In the same way he uses Mannies colour to hide behind. It
>would not be right for a White to say any such thing, so RAH makes him
>a nonWhite and gets away with it. This is why Mannie is black.
I think you are seriously reaching.
Michael Friedman
>>jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>Now perhaps he want
>to convey an idea of the future where race did not matter. More than
>likely. I think he had other reasons as well. Consider tMiaHM. If you
>ignore the two main characters of Professor de la Paz and Manuel (and
>for simplicity's sake the Computer) the rest are almost uniformly Anglo.
>Take the Cabinet. Wyoming Davis is an American. As is Terence Sheehan.
>Stuart Rene LaJoie is of course a simple minded American stereotype of
>an British aristocrat. Wolfgang Korsakov has a German first name and a
>Russian surname but is claimed to have studied at Oxford. Anglo by
>culture and education if not by birth. Finn Nielson, like Sheehan,
>claims special knowledge of Americans although no background is given
>to my knowledge. The only other character is "Comrade Clayton" who is
>not given a first name, who is the only one refered to by his pseudonym,
>who has one tiny part of about half a page, does not speak in Cabinet
>once, does not have any lines at all to my best recollection and above
>all is Japanese - the least offense foreigner to an American in 1966.
Excuse me, but what about Europeans or Canadians? They're much less
offensive than Japanese to nativist Americans.
>A token Asian. Otherwise no Asian of any sort, no African, no other
>Europeans make any significant appearance at all.
Excuse me, but Manny is part African.
>No matter what RAH
>thought about the future tMiaMH shows a world where White Anglos are
>still very much in control and have a dominating influence.
I really don't see how you can claim this. The US is certainly one of
the most important countries in the FN, but India and China are also
very important.
>Now I still do not know why
>the Professor is claimed to be Latino. Unless RAH wanted to make a point
>about the Universal applicability of Jefferson's ideas.
Joseph, please get one thing through your head. This is something you
should learn even if you get nothing else out of this thread.
RATIONAL ANARCHISM IS NOT JEFFERSONIAN.
>By having a non
>American support these ideas he is giving them international significance
>they do not have.
Well, right now they have no real significance - I know of no
political philosopher who advocates rational anarchism, except,
perhaps, for some anarchists, the vast majority of whom are European.
>RAH is, in my opinion, trying to rescue the ideas of Jefferson and
>the man himself from accusations of inherent racism.
Where on Earth do you get this from? Jefferson's personal racism is
not even discussed. As for his ideas, I've never heard anyone claim
that they were racist until now. They hardly need rescuing.
>By presenting a world
>where racism does not exist and one where people have been left alone by
>meddling governments, a world based roughly on Libertarian principles, he
>is claiming that racism exists in the US because Jefferson was not listened
>to.
Where is this claim made? Don't you think it would be more accurate
to say that he says that racism exists in the US because we haven't
had a good enough melting pot, but that the Moon, under the conditions
he posits, would have a good enough melting pot?
>No place in tMiaHM for the laws Jefferson tried to
>pass making living with a Black punishable by death or worse.
Could you please document your claim that Jefferson tried to make
living with a Black punishable by death or worse?
>Furthermore it [tMIAHM] proves an excuse for Heinlein to
>take the odd pot shot at those opposed to racism.
Really? In a book where one of his big points is that racism is
stupid? In a book where the most blatant racist he describes is a
stupid venal Southern sherriff who arrests the main character because
of the color range in his family? In a book where one of the first
heroes is a Black, Shorty Mkrum? In a book where the clearly dark
main character is married to a white American who was previously
married to two Chinese brothers?
>In particular Mannie says
>that "Is a mixed up place in another way; they care about skin colour - by
>making a point of how they *don't* care.....Think I prefer a place as openly
>racist as India, where if you aren't Hindu, you're nobody - except that
>Parsees look down on Hindus and vica versa" The odd thing about this is that
>the counter example RAH picks is not a racial problem. It is a religious
>dispute.
Joseph, you apparently aren't very familiar with India. India has
both caste and religion. The religion issue was not a big deal when
Heinlein wrote, and he ignored it. The caste issue, however was
major. The Hindus have internal castes, and they have their own ideas
of where non-Hindus fit in between those castes.
>RAH has a lot of other examples to choose from. One of Mannies
>grandparents came from South Africa but of course to say "I prefer a place
>as openly racist as South Africa" does not quite sound as nice.
Probably because he never visited South Africa. India played a large
part in the book.
>This book
>was written in 1966. Before Blacks could vote in the US
Jeeze. You really don't know much about the US, do you?
>and while the civil
>rights protests were still going on. Naturally he does not say "I prefer a
>place as openly racist as Alabama" either. Yet both examples are a better
>indicator of what he means than India which is not even a racial
>dispute.
1. It's pretty clear that he is hypothesizing a US where there is
legal equality. That means no open racism, not even in Alabama, and
2. As before, the issues in India between Hindus and others have
racial as well as religious components.
>When it comes to race RAH says through this character that he prefers the
>open racism of Governor Wallace to the Civil Rights beliefs of President
>Kennedy.
Yes. As he points out, at least Wallace was honest (at least until he
switched positions and started going after the black vote.)
>And he does so very cleverly. He uses India as an example to
>hide behind. In the same way he uses Mannies colour to hide behind. It
>would not be right for a White to say any such thing, so RAH makes him
>a nonWhite and gets away with it. This is why Mannie is black.
I think you are seriously reaching.
Michael Friedman
>In article <1993Nov12.0...@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfri...@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <2bkjbr$d...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>>Penal colony?
>>>Nothing like the Moon. This I believe was drawn from US history
>>>not ours. We had a very different system.
>>I don't think you know much about the US. In general, when people
>>think about a penal colony becoming a nation the example that is used
>>is Australia. Although some criminals were sent to the US they were a
>>small minority.
>Georgia was founded specifically as a penal colony. I can't help
>what other people say. Our penal colony past was very different
>to that of the US and to that presented in tMiaHM. You might as
>well say that the convict bit was taken from Stalinist history.
>Equally relevant.
Really? Are you claiming that if I ask an average Australian "Could
you name a penal colony that became a nation" he would say "The United
States" rather than saying "Australia"?
>>>Not very well I couldn't. I shall not try.
>>>The US *does* have a culture - that is why
>>>the French want films exempted from GATT and I trust them to know
>>>culture when they see it :-)
>>Since you mark this with a smiley I assume it is a joke and not a
>>serious response. Do you have a serious response to my question?
>Nope. I can't define a culture in a news post. And if I did it
>would fail to get general acceptance and provide new opportunities
>for flames. Nonetheless the US has one.
Really? Could you at least tell us what criteria you use when you
decide whether a particular trait is part of US culture?
>>>O.K. Poor choice of words. However all the cities were fairly
>>>clearly founded by one nation or the other. Luna City was the
>>>one that the US founded (by inference at least)
>>Could you please point me to something in the book that leads to this
>>inference?
>Nope. I am not going to argue over it either. I suppose that as
>tMiaHM was part of a larger series I could point to _the_Man_Who_
>Sold_the_Moon_ but I am not going to fight over it. If you disagree
>then please feel free to do so.
I don't understand how you can draw conclusions about Heinlein meant
and was saying based on stuff that you admit is not in his book.
>>>>Please make up your mind. First you claim that everyone in charge is
>>>>an American. Then you claim that none of them are non-Europeans.
>>>Welcome to the wonderful world of racial euphemism.
>>So what do you mean? White? White American? American?
>Of European descent.
Ah. Could you please explain how you distinguish this from "White"?
>>>Is it? Says who? His classification is exactly the problem. For
>>>his own reasons RAH decided to give him a mixed racial background.
>>>Why I can't say - perhaps he wanted to make a racial harmony point.
>>>However if you ignore the bits that tell you his background I think
>>>you could not infer it. Indeed the assumptino would be that he was
>>>a White American Middle Class male.
>>Don't his problems with Ground-hog racism count? What would you look
>>for to convince you that he was an authentic mulatto?
>His problems with "racism" on the Earth (and racism is not his
>problem but rather those opposed to racism)
Really? What about the sherriff who throws him in jail because of the
color range in his family?
>is exactly the reason
>RAH made him nonWhite in my opinion. RAH wanted to have a go at
>those opposed to Racism and fighting segregation and so invented a
>Black character whom he could hide his behind and foist his views
>upon.
I've already addressed this whole issue.
>>>>Professor Bernardo de La Paz is also pretty clearly South American,
>>>>not European.
>>>Is he? How so? His manners are exactly European in an old fashioned
>>>sort of way.
>>So are those of many upper class Latin Americans. I've met them.
>So this makes him "clearly South American"? I think not.
I should have added that I've never met a European with that kind of
manners. It's a bit like a Southern accent. Linguists say that an
American with a Southern accent is about as close as you can get today
to Elizabethan English. That doesn't mean that when I write a book
with someone speaking with a Southern drawl that I'm really describing
a Brit.
>>>Let's list all the people mentioned then shall we?
>>Ok.
>>Stuart LaJoie is a Brit, the Prof is Brazilian(?),
>Is he?
Actually, I appear to have been wrong here. Apparently he was Peruvian.
Michael Friedman
>In article <1993Nov16....@oracle.us.oracle.com>
> mfri...@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <2brqu1$l...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>
> jas...@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>Only for permission and eminent domain.
>>Eminent domain is hardly a Libertarian doctrine.
>The countries he needed to convince were not Libertarian.
But would Libertarians participate in a project that was facilitated
by someone else exercising eminent domain? Would they lobby someone
else to exercise eminent domain?
>>>>Wrong. They did not have the catapult because it was not needed by
>>>>anyone who was willing to pay for it. In fact, the absence of the
>>>>catapult was a classic free market failure.
>A classic free market success, he means. It was up to the Loonies to
>build the earth catapult (or at least fund its being built), since they
>were the ones who had a use for it.
Excuse me, but most Loonies were uninterested.
>Their appropriate tactic would have
>been to raise the price of what they shipped down in order to generate
>the neccessary capital; their cry of `no loads down without loads up' is
>also a completely appropriate tactic. And completely libertarian.
Excuse me, but the wheat farmers certainly didn't support this policy.
The government was enforcing it. Without that enforcement the wheat
farmers were clearly willing and happy to ship organics to Earth.