Robert Heinlein and New Religion
Phil Fraering
>Now, if you want to see Libertarians _really_ in anguish: there's a
>poster on soc.history.what-if who wants to have a totalitarian government
>which enforces Objectivism.
After the Revolution, You Vill HaV Strawberries and Cream AND YOU VILL
LIKE IT!
--
Phil Fraering "My name... is Amiga Montoya.
p...@globalreach.net You killed my computer.
/Will work for tape/ prepare to die!"
feud...@my-deja.com
Column".
This book is unique that the only characters in there are males. There
are no female characters.
This is actually an SF retelling of Thomas Dixon's work "Fall of a
Nation", which reportedly sold about 10 million copies but also
virtually forgotten today.
Dixon is best known for his "Clansman", the basis for the movie "Birth
of a Nation" which was the first major motion picture of history. But,
the "Fall", which was also made into a movie (whose films have been
lost today), did even better; about 15 million watched it, when the US
had about 110 million people.
Basically, the "Fall of a Nation" is the conquest of the US by the
united powers of European monarchs; the Emperors of Europe, after
ending the Great War by a Pope-induced truce, joined force to invade
the US and take its treasury. the US, which failed to mobilize, is
easily conquered.
A woman named Virginia Holland, who used to advocate the peace
movements, organized a movement among the women to kill the invaders.
In a Christmas day, about 1 million women, acting in unison, invited
one enemy soldier to their abode and killed them. Then, the men, who
had been hiding in the Sierra Nevadas, went out and destroyed the
remaining invaders.
As implausible this story looks like, Heinlein took it seriously. He
changed the settings slightly; he made the Asians, not Europeans,
conquer the US. (How they have done it is not clear.)
A few remaining scientists in Los Alamos, helped by a mongrel Japanese
named Mitsui, began to develop a weapon which could kill a person's
mind. To avoid the attention of their Asian overlords, the scientists
found a new religion, which spread into the people. IT became "Sixth
Column", because it would be more powerful than the 5th column.
In a Christmas day, just like the "Fall", the adherents of the new
religion killed an Asian for a person. Apparently, the machine only
killed Asians .
Like the "Fall", the scientists came out from their caverns and
destroyed the remaining invaders.
This book is very racistic and inaccurate, but it was Heinlein's first
commercial success.
I think that fact is worth mentioning in this NG.
--
Blessed are they which are persecuted for
righteousness' sake: for their is the kingdom of
heaven. --- Jesus.
9,000 years of human experience can't be changed.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> One of Heinlein's forgotten, but more well-written, works is "Sixth
> Column".
It's not forgotten, though many people would like to. You're virtually
alone in the opinion that it's "well-written"; even Heinlein didn't
care for it much.
> This book is unique that the only characters in there are males. There
> are no female characters.
>
> This is actually an SF retelling of Thomas Dixon's work "Fall of a
> Nation", which reportedly sold about 10 million copies but also
> virtually forgotten today.
I feel an idle curiosity about where you got this figure.
> Dixon is best known for his "Clansman", the basis for the movie "Birth
> of a Nation" which was the first major motion picture of history. But,
> the "Fall", which was also made into a movie (whose films have been
> lost today), did even better; about 15 million watched it, when the US
> had about 110 million people.
>
> Basically, the "Fall of a Nation" is the conquest of the US by the
> united powers of European monarchs; the Emperors of Europe, after
> ending the Great War by a Pope-induced truce, joined force to invade
> the US and take its treasury. the US, which failed to mobilize, is
> easily conquered.
>
> A woman named Virginia Holland, who used to advocate the peace
> movements, organized a movement among the women to kill the invaders.
> In a Christmas day, about 1 million women, acting in unison, invited
> one enemy soldier to their abode and killed them. Then, the men, who
> had been hiding in the Sierra Nevadas, went out and destroyed the
> remaining invaders.
>
> As implausible this story looks like, Heinlein took it seriously. He
> changed the settings slightly; he made the Asians, not Europeans,
> conquer the US. (How they have done it is not clear.)
Well, no, Heinlein didn't take it seriously. The plot of _Sixth
Column_ is not Heinlein's; it's John W. Campbell's. Heinlein rescued
it from its inherent idiocies as much as he could, but there was only
so much he could do without scraping it entirely, and he was too much
the professional to tick off the most important sf market of the time.
> A few remaining scientists in Los Alamos, helped by a mongrel Japanese
> named Mitsui, began to develop a weapon which could kill a person's
> mind. To avoid the attention of their Asian overlords, the scientists
> found a new religion, which spread into the people. IT became "Sixth
> Column", because it would be more powerful than the 5th column.
>
> In a Christmas day, just like the "Fall", the adherents of the new
> religion killed an Asian for a person. Apparently, the machine only
> killed Asians .
>
> Like the "Fall", the scientists came out from their caverns and
> destroyed the remaining invaders.
>
> This book is very racistic and inaccurate, but it was Heinlein's first
> commercial success.
Not even close. Heinlein had been selling sf short stories for a year
and a half before _Sixth Column_; it wasn't even his first sf novel,
only his second. And it wasn't even within shouting distance of being
his first novel published in book form: _Rocket Ship Galileo_, _Beyond
This Horizon_, _Space Cadet_, and _Red Planet_ all appeared in book
form before _Sixth Column_. Three of the four were published by
Scribner's for their juvenile line; this was sort of like owning blue
chip stocks. Heinlein had even been selling sf to _The Saturday
Evening Post_ for two years before _Sixth Column_ appeared in book
form. He even sold a story to _Town and Country_ before _Sixth Column_
made it into book form.
_Sixth Column_ got published in book form because Heinlein was
becoming somewhat of a recognizable name, not the other way around.
> I think that fact is worth mentioning in this NG.
Once again, you're forgetting that this is a newsgroup where the
regulars know more about what you're talking about than you do.
Lis Carey
Joseph Major
: One of Heinlein's forgotten, but more well-written, works is "Sixth
: Column".
: This book is unique that the only characters in there are males. There
: are no female characters.
: This is actually an SF retelling of Thomas Dixon's work "Fall of a
: Nation", which reportedly sold about 10 million copies but also
: virtually forgotten today.
Quonster! No! No, no, no, no!
_Sixth Column_/_The Day After Tomorrow_ is based on a story
written by John W. Campbell, titled "All". Campbell did not sell the
story, for whatever reason. He decided that Heinlein could do it better
and described the basic plot to him during an editorial meeting in New
York. Heinlein was dubious about the idea but went ahead and wrote it --
he had a mortgage to pay off (he had been running for the California
legislature, you know) and needed the cash.
Joseph T Major
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yrlsqb nx sobshuggum illingoon. Mark my words!"
-- Cyril Q. Kornbluth
--
Dorothy J Heydt
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>It's not forgotten, though many people would like to. You're virtually
>alone in the opinion that it's "well-written"; even Heinlein didn't
>care for it much.
But because of the content, surely. I can't imagine Heinlein in
his prime writing badly just because he was in a hurry to make a
buck.
>Well, no, Heinlein didn't take it seriously. The plot of _Sixth
>Column_ is not Heinlein's; it's John W. Campbell's. Heinlein rescued
>it from its inherent idiocies as much as he could, but there was only
>so much he could do without scraping it entirely, and he was too much
>the professional to tick off the most important sf market of the time.
The way he told the tale, he needed a new car.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Mark A Mandel
: Quonster! No! No, no, no, no!
"Quonster"?
-- Mark A. Mandel
Some days it's not even worth...
--
If you're reading this in a newsgroup: to reply by mail,
remove the obvious spam-blocker from my edress.
Dan Goodman
Mark A Mandel <mam-DIE-S...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Joseph Major (jtm...@iglou.com) wrote:
>
>: Quonster! No! No, no, no, no!
>
>"Quonster"?
The name this whacko used to use in soc.history.what-if, misc.survivalism,
and probably other newsgroups.
Feudalist/Quonster is absolutely certain about the one true course of
history when discussing alternate history. When discussing survivalism,
he is absolutely certain that individuality and personal freedom are
always contra-survival.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Mark A Mandel
: >"Quonster"?
: The name this whacko used to use in soc.history.what-if, misc.survivalism,
: and probably other newsgroups.
Bol'shoe spasibo. I thought it was an interjection taken from something I
hadn't read. Instead, it's something I don't need (or want) to know any
more about. I am satisfied.
-- Mark A. Mandel
This .sig deliberately left inco
mike stone
>Feudalist/Quonster is absolutely certain about the one true course of
>history when discussing alternate history. When discussing survivalism,
>he is absolutely certain that individuality and personal freedom are
>always contra-survival.
>
Ought to get on well with Stirling then
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
"The English people are like the English beer.
Froth on top, dregs at the bottom, the middle excellent" - Voltaire
Joseph Major
: >From: dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman)
: >Feudalist/Quonster is absolutely certain about the one true course of
: >history when discussing alternate history. When discussing survivalism,
: >he is absolutely certain that individuality and personal freedom are
: >always contra-survival.
: >
: Ought to get on well with Stirling then
He doesn't, though I think it is more not bothering than
disagreement.
However, as Ellsworth Toohey put it, the bloodiest civil wars are
between adherents of the same belief.
Joseph T Major
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Klyfix
writes:
>
>Feudalist/Quonster is absolutely certain about the one true course of
>history when discussing alternate history. When discussing survivalism,
>he is absolutely certain that individuality and personal freedom are
>always contra-survival.
This inspires curiosity. Is the gentleman arguing that people organizing as
groups will survive better than Macho Rugged Individualists, or is he
suggesting
that people must submit themselves to the equivalent of feudal lords after a
collapse, or is it some other thing?
I've had a few discussions with libertarian sorts who, if one suggested that
it might be legitimate for government to do more than provide for national
defense and enforcement of contracts, would reply with "Why are you
afraid of liberty?". Thus I'm wondering if this is a Libertarian vs. Other
conflict or if the guy have a truly flakey philosophy.
V.S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
Eckzylon: http://members.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
RPG and SF, predictions, philosophy, and other things.
Renovations underway, Aug. 22, 1999
Robert Patrick Meyer
kly...@aol.com.bogus says...
> This inspires curiosity. Is the gentleman arguing that people organizing as
> groups will survive better than Macho Rugged Individualists, or is he
> suggesting
> that people must submit themselves to the equivalent of feudal lords after a
> collapse, or is it some other thing?
>
> I've had a few discussions with libertarian sorts who, if one suggested that
> it might be legitimate for government to do more than provide for national
> defense and enforcement of contracts, would reply with "Why are you
> afraid of liberty?". Thus I'm wondering if this is a Libertarian vs. Other
> conflict or if the guy have a truly flakey philosophy.
>
>
He believes in Feudalism. This man is a flake, and one with some very
inhumane ideas.
Trust me, he has not demonstrated any libertarian thought.
--
------------
RobM...@resnet.gatech.edu
" Dude, at this point, I'll take a walk with her, if
that's all I can get. " -overheard in my building
Dan Goodman
Klyfix <kly...@aol.com.bogus> wrote:
>In article <qaZC3.1403$S5.1...@ptah.visi.com>, dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman)
>writes:
>
>>Feudalist/Quonster is absolutely certain about the one true course of
>>history when discussing alternate history. When discussing survivalism,
>>he is absolutely certain that individuality and personal freedom are
>>always contra-survival.
>
>groups will survive better than Macho Rugged Individualists,
No.
or is he
>suggesting
>that people must submit themselves to the equivalent of feudal lords after a
>collapse,
To his conception of a good ruler. Who doesn't make the kinds of wimpy
compromises Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great did.
or is it some other thing?
>
>I've had a few discussions with libertarian sorts who, if one suggested that
>it might be legitimate for government to do more than provide for national
>defense and enforcement of contracts, would reply with "Why are you
>afraid of liberty?". Thus I'm wondering if this is a Libertarian vs. Other
>conflict or if the guy have a truly flakey philosophy.
No, it's not a Libertarian vs. Other conflict.
Now, if you want to see Libertarians _really_ in anguish: there's a
poster on soc.history.what-if who wants to have a totalitarian government
which enforces Objectivism.
Dan Goodman
Robert Patrick Meyer <RobM...@resnet.gatech.edu> wrote:
>In article <19990913190723...@ngol08.aol.com>,
>kly...@aol.com.bogus says...
>> suggesting
>> that people must submit themselves to the equivalent of feudal lords after a
>>
>> I've had a few discussions with libertarian sorts who, if one suggested that
>> it might be legitimate for government to do more than provide for national
>> defense and enforcement of contracts, would reply with "Why are you
>> afraid of liberty?". Thus I'm wondering if this is a Libertarian vs. Other
>> conflict or if the guy have a truly flakey philosophy.
>>
>>
>
Correction: he believes in what he thinks feudalism is.
This man is a flake, and one with some very
>inhumane ideas.
>
>Trust me, he has not demonstrated any libertarian thought.
>
>--
>------------
>RobM...@resnet.gatech.edu
>
>" Dude, at this point, I'll take a walk with her, if
> that's all I can get. " -overheard in my building
feud...@my-deja.com
RobM...@resnet.gatech.edu (Robert Patrick Meyer) wrote:
> In article <19990913190723...@ngol08.aol.com>,
> kly...@aol.com.bogus says...
> > This inspires curiosity. Is the gentleman arguing that people
organizing as
> > groups will survive better than Macho Rugged Individualists, or is
he
> > suggesting
> > that people must submit themselves to the equivalent of feudal
lords after a
> > collapse, or is it some other thing?
> >
> > I've had a few discussions with libertarian sorts who, if one
suggested that
> > it might be legitimate for government to do more than provide for
national
> > defense and enforcement of contracts, would reply with "Why are you
> > afraid of liberty?". Thus I'm wondering if this is a Libertarian
vs. Other
> > conflict or if the guy have a truly flakey philosophy.
> >
> >
>
> He believes in Feudalism.
Meyer is right. I believe in Feudalism, the only true antidote against
tyranny.
>This man is a flake, and one with some very
> inhumane ideas.
Or, I have to say, efficient ideas, the kind of ideas popular in Wall
Street strategy rooms or Fortune 500 boardrooms.
>
> Trust me, he has not demonstrated any libertarian thought.
>
> --
> ------------
> RobM...@resnet.gatech.edu
>
> " Dude, at this point, I'll take a walk with her, if
> that's all I can get. " -overheard in my building
>
--
Simon Slavin
feud...@my-deja.com wrote:
> As implausible this story looks like, Heinlein took it seriously. He
> changed the settings slightly; he made the Asians, not Europeans,
> conquer the US. (How they have done it is not clear.) [snip]
The book says that 'they came over the pole' which makes sense.
It also explains that a 'bamboo curtain' policy had been in
place: the US had no idea of the stage of Asian politics and
technology because of a non-intercourse policy.
_Sixth Column_ (better-known under the later title _The Day
After Tomorrow_) is Heinlein's rewrite of a story by Campbell.
Campbell's judged that his story was unpublishable (not only
did he not sell it, he didn't choose to publish it in the
magazine he edited) and asked Heinlein to rewrite it. Since
Heinlein almost never did this, I suspect that a mortgage
payment was due or something like that. Heinlein didn't like
the result much.
We know that the original story didn't contain much explanation
of the science involved and that Heinlein thought it was racist.
It was Campbell who made the baddies Asiatic, not Heinlein.
Heinlein wrote later that he'd taken out all the blatently
racist parts that he could find and had worked particularly hard
on making the science as plausible as possible.
Simon.
--
<http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk> | ... you start off with a typical message,
No junk email please. | let's say a 2.5MB Word document containing
ET may've phoned /us/. | three lines of text and a macro virus ...
Help play the tape: SETI@home. | -- Peter Gutmann
Steve Parker
slavins.at.hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
>
>Heinlein wrote later that he'd taken out all the blatently
>racist parts that he could find and had worked particularly hard
>on making the science as plausible as possible.
He also added as one of the very few sympathetic characters in the
book (Frank?) Mitsui, an American of Asian ancestry. (Who Quonster
dismisses as a "mongrel Japanese". Which actually says quite a bit
about Quonster). To the best of my recollection, Mitsui isn't in
Campbell's original story.
Steve
Charlie Stross
<pgf@lungold> wrote:
>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) writes:
>
>>Now, if you want to see Libertarians _really_ in anguish: there's a
>>poster on soc.history.what-if who wants to have a totalitarian government
>>which enforces Objectivism.
>
>After the Revolution, You Vill HaV Strawberries and Cream AND YOU VILL
>LIKE IT!
Yes, sort-of, except it's "death to degenerate second-handers, communists,
their running-dog hanger's-on (including everyone from Maoists to Nazis),
and anyone who questions the god-hood of Ayn Rand".
Oh, according to this poster the USA is the One True Nation and all other
nations are as dust beneath it's jack-boots in the new objectivist world.
Did I mention that he's Canadian?
-- Charlie
David Homerick
Dan Goodman wrote:
>
> In article <19990913190723...@ngol08.aol.com>,
> Klyfix <kly...@aol.com.bogus> wrote:
> or is he
> >suggesting
> >that people must submit themselves to the equivalent of feudal lords after a
> >collapse,
>
> To his conception of a good ruler. Who doesn't make the kinds of wimpy
> compromises Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great did.
>
Ah. A Holnist.
-- David
Phil Fraering
>Steve Parker wrote:
>>BTW: To Dan Goodman or the others who've told us about Quonster: Is
>>this guy kidding? I mean, this is a massive put on, right?
>I'm pretty sure no - I've been following him from his AOL days.
"It Came From AOL!"
--
Phil Fraering Now I lay me down to sleep
p...@globalreach.net Try to count electric sheep
/Will work for tape/ Sweet dream wishes you can keep
How I hate the night. - Marvin, the Paranoid Android.
Phil Fraering
>Some of us take "mongrel" to be a term of pride. It's the people (like
>Quonster) who think mixed ancestry is a _bad_ thing who are confused.
>Lis Carey
It's not "good" or "bad" to be a mongrel.
There's only "denial" and "acceptance."
I mean, where does everyone think the Japanese came from to begin
with? Were they created separately by God from an evolved-from-monkeys
human race, or are they the offspring of refugees from the establishment
of Korea and some more southern relatives of the Ainu?
Phil Fraering
>On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:14:07 GMT, in rec.arts.sf.written
>p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net (Pete McCutchen) wrote:
>>Well, oddly enough, it seems to me that Q/F would actually like the
>>Drakan society. It seems to be consistent with his notion of
>>"feudalism."
>No, Draka was too capitalist for Q's taste.
>IMHO, the closest to Quonster's noble ideal was ancient
>Sparta.
>(I know that it was communist, but it has true Quonsterist
>spirit)
I don't know. The Spartans were too alien.
feud...@my-deja.com
He WAS a mongrel Japanese (which means, for non-USA people like you,
half-Caucasian).
In one of the later parts, the Pan-Asians try to kill all the
caucasians by using a device which killed only Caucasians; it didn't
work on Mitsui, cuz he was not exactly a Caucasian. So, they changed
the gauge to "Asian" and used that weapon, and it didn't work either.
So, they had to get out and get their old guns to kill him; by then the
ringleaders had fled.
It is fine to disagree with me, but a mongrel is a mongrel no matter
how much you don't like that.
>
> Steve
Richard Horton
slavins.at.hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
>_Sixth Column_ (better-known under the later title _The Day
>After Tomorrow_) is Heinlein's rewrite of a story by Campbell.
>Campbell's judged that his story was unpublishable (not only
>did he not sell it, he didn't choose to publish it in the
>magazine he edited) and asked Heinlein to rewrite it. Since
>Heinlein almost never did this, I suspect that a mortgage
>payment was due or something like that. Heinlein didn't like
>the result much.
The story, "All", was later published, however. And Campbell gave the
basic idea to another writer, and we got _Gather, Darkness_ by Fritz
Leiber. Note that _Gather, Darkness_ is by any reasonable measure a
much different story than _Sixth Column_.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
willre...@my-deja.com
feud...@my-deja.com wrote:
> It is fine to disagree with me, but a mongrel is a mongrel no matter
> how much you don't like that.
It IS fine to disagree with you. On the other paw, when talking about
human beings, the term mongrel is an insult. The idea that the word
COULD be used in a non-insulting sense, that it could be just a neutral
descriptive term, has some attraction in an abstract sense. However, we
do not operate in a universe of cool intellect. To call someone a
mongrel is to use a perjorative term. I am not trying to enforce any
kind of political correctness, just to ask for civil behavior.
--
Bill Reich
Guns made tough guys, and feudalsim, obsolete
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <37ded9b5...@news.mindspring.com>,
> spar...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > slavins.at.hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >racist parts that he could find and had worked particularly hard
> > >on making the science as plausible as possible.
> >
> > He also added as one of the very few sympathetic characters in the
> > book (Frank?) Mitsui, an American of Asian ancestry. (Who Quonster
> > dismisses as a "mongrel Japanese". Which actually says quite a bit
> > about Quonster). To the best of my recollection, Mitsui isn't in
> > Campbell's original story.
>
> He WAS a mongrel Japanese (which means, for non-USA people like you,
> half-Caucasian).
Which is to say, he was an American.
> In one of the later parts, the Pan-Asians try to kill all the
> caucasians by using a device which killed only Caucasians; it didn't
> work on Mitsui, cuz he was not exactly a Caucasian. So, they changed
> the gauge to "Asian" and used that weapon, and it didn't work either.
>
> So, they had to get out and get their old guns to kill him; by then the
> ringleaders had fled.
>
> It is fine to disagree with me, but a mongrel is a mongrel no matter
> how much you don't like that.
Yeah, and the dirty little secret of the human race is, we're all
mongrels. The difference between the major immigrant nations and the
older nations is that, in the immigrant nations, it's a bit easier to
notice this fact.
Note that, in _Sixth Column_, being a "mongrel" is a source of
strength, enabling Mitsui to serve his country rather more effectively
than if he'd been "purebred".
Lis Carey
Joseph Major
: In article <37ded9b5...@news.mindspring.com>,
: spar...@mindspring.com wrote:
: > On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 22:50:55 +0100,
: > slavins.at.hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
: > >Heinlein wrote later that he'd taken out all the blatently
: > >racist parts that he could find and had worked particularly hard
: > >on making the science as plausible as possible.
: >
: > He also added as one of the very few sympathetic characters in the
: > book (Frank?) Mitsui, an American of Asian ancestry. (Who Quonster
: > dismisses as a "mongrel Japanese". Which actually says quite a bit
: > about Quonster). To the best of my recollection, Mitsui isn't in
: > Campbell's original story.
: He WAS a mongrel Japanese (which means, for non-USA people like you,
: half-Caucasian).
Quonster! No! No, no, no!
Frank Mitsui was of Japanese and Chinese ancestry, with perhaps
some "caucasian" ancestry as well.
: In one of the later parts, the Pan-Asians try to kill all the
: caucasians by using a device which killed only Caucasians; it didn't
: work on Mitsui, cuz he was not exactly a Caucasian. So, they changed
: the gauge to "Asian" and used that weapon, and it didn't work either.
: So, they had to get out and get their old guns to kill him; by then the
: ringleaders had fled.
Wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong!
The chief scientist at the project, who has been at odds with
Major Ardmore (the commander and organizer of the war) and with his
principal assistant all along, goes mad and decides he is the god Mota.
He holds them at "gunpoint" with one of the weapons they have developed,
informing them that it is set to kill "white" people. Mitsui attacks him
and takes a blast, which doesn't hurt him at all since he is a "oriental".
By the time the scientist has changed settings, Mitsui has grabbed him,
and while the madman has to deal with the corpse, the others grab him.
: It is fine to disagree with me, but a mongrel is a mongrel no matter
: how much you don't like that.
And at the cost of his own life, Frank Mitsui saved the day there,
no matter how much you don't like that.
Joseph T Major
--
Jordan S. Bassior
>Yeah, and the dirty little secret of the human race is, we're all
>mongrels. The difference between the major immigrant nations and the
>older nations is that, in the immigrant nations, it's a bit easier to
>notice this fact.
Yep. The bloodlines here have crossed within recent times, rather than during
the Roman Empire or prehistory.
>Note that, in _Sixth Column_, being a "mongrel" is a source of
>strength, enabling Mitsui to serve his country rather more effectively
>than if he'd been "purebred".
Which I suspect was an intentional point Heinlein was making ... consider that
even his earliest stories assumed an essentially postracist future. I really
doubt that Heinlein was one to look down on his fellow man simply because of
the color of his skin.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and
a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Evelyn C. Leeper
> In article <7rn9u8$ocd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> feud...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > how much you don't like that.
>
> human beings, the term mongrel is an insult. The idea that the word
> COULD be used in a non-insulting sense, that it could be just a neutral
> descriptive term, has some attraction in an abstract sense. However, we
> do not operate in a universe of cool intellect. To call someone a
> mongrel is to use a perjorative term. I am not trying to enforce any
> kind of political correctness, just to ask for civil behavior.
I've always kind of liked "mutt" myself.
"Blend" is good too.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
"There are two types of people in this world: those who think giant steam
powered robotic spiders are stupid, and those who don't." --Bryan F. Theiss
Louann Miller
wrote:
>Ah. A Holnist.
The interesting bit is that ol Quonster/Feudalist seems well aware
which role he'd occupy in the boot vs. face society he proposes. He's
not only not against it, he seems to get all squirmy and giggly at the
thought. I think Stirling addresses this sort of thing at one point in
"Under the Yoke."
Jordan S. Bassior
>The interesting bit is that ol Quonster/Feudalist seems well aware
>which role he'd occupy in the boot vs. face society he proposes. He's
>not only not against it, he seems to get all squirmy and giggly at the
>thought.
Yeah, doesn't that creep ya out? I think the Q/F is afraid of the freedom he's
encountered here in the USA, and wishes for a simpler society in which he could
just do what others told him to do. I think there's also a major element of
revenge fantasy here; he's prolly been burned by freethinking Americans (maybe
girls from one of his posts about sex being superseded by genetic engineering)
and wants to see them suffer for their liberal ways.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Leeper) wrote:
>In article <7ro514$b7d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <willre...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <7rn9u8$ocd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> feud...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> > It is fine to disagree with me, but a mongrel is a mongrel no matter
>> > how much you don't like that.
>>
>> It IS fine to disagree with you. On the other paw, when talking about
>> human beings, the term mongrel is an insult.
>
>I've always kind of liked "mutt" myself.
>
>"Blend" is good too.
My parents liked the phrase "hybrid vigor."
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 7/24/99
Nancy Lebovitz
Charlie Stross <charlie @ nospam . antipope . org> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 11:16:29 -0500, Phil Fraering
><pgf@lungold> wrote:
>
>>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) writes:
>>
>>>Now, if you want to see Libertarians _really_ in anguish: there's a
>>>poster on soc.history.what-if who wants to have a totalitarian government
>>>which enforces Objectivism.
>>
>>After the Revolution, You Vill HaV Strawberries and Cream AND YOU VILL
>>LIKE IT!
>
>Yes, sort-of, except it's "death to degenerate second-handers, communists,
>their running-dog hanger's-on (including everyone from Maoists to Nazis),
>and anyone who questions the god-hood of Ayn Rand".
>
if you assume it was written about Russians.....
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com
Calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Doctor Witch
cha...@pc.antipope.org (Charlie Stross) wrote:
> >dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) writes:
> >>Now, if you want to see Libertarians _really_ in
> >>anguish: there's a
> >>poster on soc.history.what-if who wants to have a
> >>totalitarian government
> >>which enforces Objectivism.
> [...] it's "death to degenerate
> second-handers, communists,
> their running-dog hanger's-on (including everyone from
> Maoists to Nazis),
> and anyone who questions the god-hood of Ayn Rand".
It's actually very easy to imagine. All you would need is
someone to play Lenin to Rand's Marx: someone who would
explain, in detail, how the road to True Objectivism
goes over the path of secret police, state control of
the press, everybody memorizing the text of _Atlas
Shrugged_, etc. etc.
(The mind boggles; who would be the Randian Trotsky,
murdered for his advocacy of "World Objectivism"?
Who would write _The Objectivist Archipelago_?)
Doc W, thankful (for once) he lives in OTL
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Ross Presser
Bassior).wrote.posted.offered:
>I really doubt that Heinlein was one to look down on his fellow man
>simply because of the color of his skin.
>
Considering "Farnham's Freehold" and "Friday", I would tend to agree.
--
Ross Presser
ross_p...@imtek.com
Pete McCutchen
Patrick Meyer) wrote:
>>
>> I've had a few discussions with libertarian sorts who, if one suggested that
>> it might be legitimate for government to do more than provide for national
>> defense and enforcement of contracts, would reply with "Why are you
>> afraid of liberty?". Thus I'm wondering if this is a Libertarian vs. Other
>> conflict or if the guy have a truly flakey philosophy.
>>
>>
>
>He believes in Feudalism. This man is a flake, and one with some very
>inhumane ideas.
It's not clear to me that he actually believes in "feudalism," as it
was actually practiced. Feudalism, as practiced, was a localistic,
somewhat disorganzied, complex, system, with a fair amount of elbow
room. He strikes me as more of an "authoritarian" than a feudalist.
>
>Trust me, he has not demonstrated any libertarian thought.
Even feudalism can have some libertarian strains.
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 21:40:58 -0700, David Homerick <dhom...@jps.net>
>wrote:
>>Dan Goodman wrote:
>>> In article <19990913190723...@ngol08.aol.com>,
>>> Klyfix <kly...@aol.com.bogus> wrote:
>
>>> or is he>> >suggesting
>>> >that people must submit themselves to the equivalent of feudal lords after a
>>> >collapse,
>
>>> To his conception of a good ruler. Who doesn't make the kinds of wimpy
>>> compromises Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great did.
>
>>Ah. A Holnist.
>
>The interesting bit is that ol Quonster/Feudalist seems well aware
>which role he'd occupy in the boot vs. face society he proposes. He's
>not only not against it, he seems to get all squirmy and giggly at the
>thought. I think Stirling addresses this sort of thing at one point in
>"Under the Yoke."
>
Can you explicate that a bit? I mean the part about _Under the Yoke_;
I think I understand what you mean about Q/F. I could well be missing
an obvious reference; it's been a while since I read _UTY_, and I'm
not particularly interested in rereading it in the next few days.
Btw, has Q/F read the Draka books? What does he think about them?
Pete McCutchen
>>
>> He also added as one of the very few sympathetic characters in the
>> book (Frank?) Mitsui, an American of Asian ancestry. (Who Quonster
>> dismisses as a "mongrel Japanese". Which actually says quite a bit
>> about Quonster). To the best of my recollection, Mitsui isn't in
>> Campbell's original story.
>
>He WAS a mongrel Japanese (which means, for non-USA people like you,
>half-Caucasian).
There's an early Babylon 5 episode which denigrates the sort of purity
to which you refer. We're all "mongrels," if you go back far enough,
or redefine your racial groups.
In any case, there is something called "mongrel robustness;" mongrel
dogs live longer than purebreds.
>
>In one of the later parts, the Pan-Asians try to kill all the
>caucasians by using a device which killed only Caucasians; it didn't
>work on Mitsui, cuz he was not exactly a Caucasian. So, they changed
>the gauge to "Asian" and used that weapon, and it didn't work either.
I question your ability to read. It was the good guys -- the
'Muricans -- who had the device that killed people of different racial
groups, not the PanAsians. And Mitsui sacrificed himself by exposing
himself to rays set to kill Asians.
>
>So, they had to get out and get their old guns to kill him; by then the
>ringleaders had fled.
>
>It is fine to disagree with me, but a mongrel is a mongrel no matter
>how much you don't like that.
Whatever you say, Q.
Nancy Lebovitz
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>In any case, there is something called "mongrel robustness;" mongrel
>dogs live longer than purebreds.
>
to be purebreed and short-lived, then that would bias the results
unless the mongrels and purebreds were matched for size.
Dan Goodman
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 19:14:37 -0400, RobM...@resnet.gatech.edu (Robert
>Patrick Meyer) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I've had a few discussions with libertarian sorts who, if one suggested that
>>> it might be legitimate for government to do more than provide for national
>>> defense and enforcement of contracts, would reply with "Why are you
>>> afraid of liberty?". Thus I'm wondering if this is a Libertarian vs. Other
>>> conflict or if the guy have a truly flakey philosophy.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>He believes in Feudalism. This man is a flake, and one with some very
>>inhumane ideas.
>
>It's not clear to me that he actually believes in "feudalism," as it
>was actually practiced.
It's very, very clear to me that he doesn't believe in what was actually
practiced, and was later called "feudalism" (I believe the term is from
the 19th century). Nor does he believe in anything that any professional
historian (with the possible exception of one or two raving loonies on the
lunatic fringe of raving looniehood) has meant by "feudalism".
Feudalism, as practiced, was a localistic,
>somewhat disorganzied, complex, system, with a fair amount of elbow
>room. He strikes me as more of an "authoritarian" than a feudalist.
>
>>
>>Trust me, he has not demonstrated any libertarian thought.
>
>Even feudalism can have some libertarian strains.
>
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Martin Ripa
dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>
>Now, if you want to see Libertarians _really_ in anguish: there's a
>poster on soc.history.what-if who wants to have a totalitarian government
>which enforces Objectivism.
It is not surprising - Libertarianism and Objectivism are
like Socialism and Marxism - harmless dream and deadly
nightmare.
It is fascinating to see history repeat itself. Sometimes,
when I read SHWI , I feel like I'm in 1899, in a coffee
house in Paris, with people like Ulyanov, Bronstein,
Djugashvilli and young boy named Lavrenti :-)
Martin, an degenerate conservative petty-bourgeois second
handed dog-pig
"I wouldn't want to be a member of any
club that would allow *me* to join."
Groucho Marx
Martin Ripa
loua...@yahoo.net (Louann Miller) wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 21:40:58 -0700, David Homerick <dhom...@jps.net>
>wrote:
>>Dan Goodman wrote:
>>> In article <19990913190723...@ngol08.aol.com>,
>>> Klyfix <kly...@aol.com.bogus> wrote:
>
>>> or is he>> >suggesting
>>> >that people must submit themselves to the equivalent of feudal lords after a
>>> >collapse,
>
>>> To his conception of a good ruler. Who doesn't make the kinds of wimpy
>>> compromises Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great did.
>
>>Ah. A Holnist.
>
>The interesting bit is that ol Quonster/Feudalist seems well aware
>which role he'd occupy in the boot vs. face society he proposes. He's
>not only not against it, he seems to get all squirmy and giggly at the
>thought. I think Stirling addresses this sort of thing at one point in
>"Under the Yoke."
>
Quonster's dream is not to be peasant. He wants to be
servant of feudal lord. He dreams about stomping on the
peasant mob and being stomped on by his overlord.
In his ideal society would be three classes of people:
1) The lords, who would have everything
2) The peasants, who would have nothing
3) The Quonsters
His ideal is not Napoleon, but Talleyrand, not Stalin, but
Beria.
Martin
--
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Terry Pratchett, "Jingo"
Louann Miller
McCutchen) wrote:
>>The interesting bit is that ol Quonster/Feudalist seems well aware
>>which role he'd occupy in the boot vs. face society he proposes. He's
>>not only not against it, he seems to get all squirmy and giggly at the
>>thought. I think Stirling addresses this sort of thing at one point in
>>"Under the Yoke."
>Can you explicate that a bit? I mean the part about _Under the Yoke_;
Masochism as a successful survival strategy for proto-servus was what
I had in mind.
>Btw, has Q/F read the Draka books? What does he think about them?
I don't think he's read them. Stirling has cleaned his clock often
enough in soc.history.what-if that he probably never will.
Coyu
>
>It is fascinating to see history repeat itself. Sometimes,
>when I read SHWI , I feel like I'm in 1899, in a coffee
>house in Paris, with people like Ulyanov, Bronstein,
>Djugashvilli and young boy named Lavrenti :-)
Well, that's why I like it. That, the eternal Sealion debate, the recurring
ironclad debate, the haiku thread marked as a limerick thread...
Coyu
>Yes, sort-of, except it's "death to degenerate second-handers, communists,
>their running-dog hanger's-on (including everyone from Maoists to Nazis),
>and anyone who questions the god-hood of Ayn Rand".
>
>Oh, according to this poster the USA is the One True Nation and all other
>nations are as dust beneath it's jack-boots in the new objectivist world.
>
>Did I mention that he's Canadian?
Robert Meza lives in LA. Adam Yoshida, who is not quite so rabid
as NewWorldMan/Meza, is a Canadian - Vancouver IIRC.
(Yes, I do keep track of these things.)
Steve Parker
>He WAS a mongrel Japanese (which means, for non-USA people like you,
>half-Caucasian).
>
>In one of the later parts, the Pan-Asians try to kill all the
>caucasians by using a device which killed only Caucasians; it didn't
>work on Mitsui, cuz he was not exactly a Caucasian. So, they changed
>the gauge to "Asian" and used that weapon, and it didn't work either.
>
>So, they had to get out and get their old guns to kill him; by then the
>ringleaders had fled.
>
>It is fine to disagree with me, but a mongrel is a mongrel no matter
>how much you don't like that.
>
>>
You are a sad, strange little man. And I pity you.
From the Gnome Press edition, Published 1949 page 45:
"But the Pan-Asians aren't Japanese"
"No, and they are not Chinese. They are a mixed race, strong, proud
and prolific. (They share the virtues and weaknesses of both). But
from my perspective they are simply human beings who have been duped
into the fallacy of the State as a super-entity"
The PAN-ASIAN INVADERS were the so-called mongrels you nitwit. READ
THE DAMNED BOOK before you post Quon-for-brains. (Also note that
A) Heinlein thinks that their being a "mixed race" is something that
makes them stronger and B) He considers them fallible humans like
anyone else, not simply dismissed with the pejorative term "mongrel")
Frank Roosevelt Mitsumi, the most sympathetic character in the book
also has a mixed heritage, but PER HEINLEIN "...was as American as
Will Rogers and much more American than that English aristocrat,
George Washington" (ibid, pg 48). Frank was not half Japanese and half
Caucasian. Same page "(his grandmother was) half Chinese and half
wahini from Honolulu". So his father was 3/4s Chinese and 1/4th
Hawaiian, Frank's mother was "Part Chinese, but mostly Caucasian" As
far as I can tell, Frank has NO "Japanese blood" anywhere in him.
Again evident, if you read the book. (Back cover descriptions don't
count)
I find it telling that the only people in the book who care about
Frank's heritage are the invaders. The good guys, once assured that
he's on their side, don't care but the invaders hunted Asian Americans
down and killed them.
As to the rest of your points:
The Pan-Asians try to kill Frank (with guns) at the beginning of the
book. The Americans are the ones with the race based death ray. Frank
sacrifices himself to save the good guys from the death ray which has
been usurped by an ex-good guy. It doesn't work on him since the ray
was set for Caucasian, not Asian. Being of mixed race has NOTHING to
do with it.
It's fine to disagree with me, but please, try to disagree about the
book that was actually written, and not the book that your racist
fantasies project.
Steve (strangely more irritated by Quonster than I should be.)
BTW: To Dan Goodman or the others who've told us about Quonster: Is
this guy kidding? I mean, this is a massive put on, right?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Parker) wrote:
>Frank Roosevelt Mitsumi, the most sympathetic character in the book
>also has a mixed heritage, but PER HEINLEIN "...was as American as
>Will Rogers and much more American than that English aristocrat,
>George Washington" (ibid, pg 48). Frank was not half Japanese and half
>Caucasian. Same page "(his grandmother was) half Chinese and half
>wahini from Honolulu". So his father was 3/4s Chinese and 1/4th
>Hawaiian, Frank's mother was "Part Chinese, but mostly Caucasian" As
>far as I can tell, Frank has NO "Japanese blood" anywhere in him.
>Again evident, if you read the book. (Back cover descriptions don't
>count)
Then where'd he get the Japanese name Mitsumi?
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Lis Carey said:
>
> >Yeah, and the dirty little secret of the human race is, we're all
> >mongrels. The difference between the major immigrant nations and the
> >older nations is that, in the immigrant nations, it's a bit easier to
> >notice this fact.
>
> Yep. The bloodlines here have crossed within recent times, rather than during
> the Roman Empire or prehistory.
Oh, the bloodlines in Europe have crossed a lot more recently than the
Roman Empire. It's just that they didn't, until fairly recently, cross
with the wild abandon that they have long tended to in the major
immigrant nations.
Recently, though, well, I think the UK is becoming one of the major
immigrant nations.
> >Note that, in _Sixth Column_, being a "mongrel" is a source of
> >strength, enabling Mitsui to serve his country rather more effectively
> >than if he'd been "purebred".
>
> Which I suspect was an intentional point Heinlein was making ... consider that
> even his earliest stories assumed an essentially postracist future. I really
> doubt that Heinlein was one to look down on his fellow man simply because of
> the color of his skin.
I agree; that was my point. Once again, our little "feudalist" is
looking for support in all the wrong places.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 19:41:54 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans
> <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 22:41:57 GMT, spar...@mindspring.com (Steve
> >Parker) wrote:
> >>wahini from Honolulu". So his father was 3/4s Chinese and 1/4th
> >>Hawaiian, Frank's mother was "Part Chinese, but mostly Caucasian" As
> >>far as I can tell, Frank has NO "Japanese blood" anywhere in him.
> >>Again evident, if you read the book. (Back cover descriptions don't
> >>count)
> >
> >Then where'd he get the Japanese name Mitsumi?
>
> possible place is from his paternal grandfather, who we know nothing
> about (except that he brought Frank's paternal grandmother "over from
> Honolulu to Los Angeles where they raised flowers, plants and little
> yellow children, children that neither knew Chinese, nor Japanese, nor
> cared." (pp 48) ), so maybe Frank's paternal grandpa was Japanese.
I'd think that's the most likely significance of Japanese being
mentioned in the quoted paragraph at all. It doesn't, for instance,
bother to mention that the children didn't know Korean, or Hindi. I
think Japanese was mentioned for a reason.
> The Pan-Asians, due to the "non-Intercourse Act" had been completely
> isolated for two generations, which allows for Frank's Grandpa to be
> 100% Japanese.If so, Frank is, assuming his paternal grandpa is 100%
> Japanese....1/8th? Japanese (I think.)
>
> In any case, no way is he 1/2 Japanese (per Quonster)
>
> Other than the name, though, there's no evidence that Granddad was any
> specific race. How Japanese is the name Mitsumi? I'm unfamiliar with
> details about Japanese surnames.
It's very much Japanese, and it's not even possibly Chinese or native
Hawaiian, which are the only other ancestries mentioned. The
reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that the grandfather is
Japanese, and Frank is therefore up to 1/4 Japanese. (We don't know if
the grandfather is pure Japanese, and in Hawaii, that can't be
conclusively assumed in the absence of evidence.)
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <37dfdbcd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >In any case, there is something called "mongrel robustness;" mongrel
> >dogs live longer than purebreds.
> >
> How carefully was this tested? For example, if the biggest dogs are apt
> to be purebreed and short-lived, then that would bias the results
> unless the mongrels and purebreds were matched for size.
The smallest dogs also tend to be purebred, even more so than very big
dogs. And hybrid vigor has been demonstrated in more than just dogs.
Lis Carey
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Parker) wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 19:41:54 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans
><lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 22:41:57 GMT, spar...@mindspring.com (Steve
>>Parker) wrote:
>>><snip>Same page "(his grandmother was) half Chinese and half
>>>wahini from Honolulu". So his father was 3/4s Chinese and 1/4th
>>>Hawaiian, Frank's mother was "Part Chinese, but mostly Caucasian" As
>>>far as I can tell, Frank has NO "Japanese blood" anywhere in him.
>>>Again evident, if you read the book. (Back cover descriptions don't
>>>count)
>>
>>Then where'd he get the Japanese name Mitsumi?
>
>Don't know. I hadn't realized that it was a Japanese name.
It is.
> The only
>possible place is from his paternal grandfather, who we know nothing
>about (except that he brought Frank's paternal grandmother "over from
>Honolulu to Los Angeles where they raised flowers, plants and little
>yellow children, children that neither knew Chinese, nor Japanese, nor
>cared." (pp 48) ), so maybe Frank's paternal grandpa was Japanese.
That works, and is what I always assumed.
>In any case, no way is he 1/2 Japanese (per Quonster)
Agreed.
> How Japanese is the name Mitsumi?
Very. It's a common Japanese name, and I've never encountered it
anywhere other than Japanese. It's as Japanese as, say, Fellini is
Italian. It's linguistically impossible as a family name in Chinese
or Korean, doesn't occur in Vietnamese, and while I suppose it might
turn up in some Indonesian dialect or somewhere I haven't heard of it
doing so.
Dan Goodman
Steve Parker <spar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>BTW: To Dan Goodman or the others who've told us about Quonster: Is
>this guy kidding? I mean, this is a massive put on, right?
Since I'm not a telepath, I can't say for sure. But I think he believes
everything he says.
carl Dershem
> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 22:41:57 GMT, spar...@mindspring.com (Steve
> Parker) wrote:
>
> > As
> >far as I can tell, Frank has NO "Japanese blood" anywhere in him.
> >Again evident, if you read the book. (Back cover descriptions don't
> >count)
>
> Then where'd he get the Japanese name Mitsumi?
He was named after a car?
Martin Ripa
co...@aol.com (Coyu) wrote:
>Robert Meza lives in LA. Adam Yoshida, who is not quite so rabid
>as NewWorldMan/Meza, is a Canadian - Vancouver IIRC.
And he is not Objectivist, but sort of an
Nieztschean/Stirnerite
"I do not like the principle of non initiation of force"*
"To rule over the undesirables is a basic human right"
and so on...
* In order to make $100000 per year in the drug capital of
North America, one has to initiate force sometimes.
>
>(Yes, I do keep track of these things.)
Yes, I do remember these things :-))
Martin, from the heart of darkness
--
Steve Parker
>On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 22:41:57 GMT, spar...@mindspring.com (Steve
>Parker) wrote:
>><snip>Same page "(his grandmother was) half Chinese and half
>>wahini from Honolulu". So his father was 3/4s Chinese and 1/4th
>>Hawaiian, Frank's mother was "Part Chinese, but mostly Caucasian" As
>>far as I can tell, Frank has NO "Japanese blood" anywhere in him.
>>Again evident, if you read the book. (Back cover descriptions don't
>>count)
>
>Then where'd he get the Japanese name Mitsumi?
Don't know. I hadn't realized that it was a Japanese name. The only
possible place is from his paternal grandfather, who we know nothing
about (except that he brought Frank's paternal grandmother "over from
Honolulu to Los Angeles where they raised flowers, plants and little
yellow children, children that neither knew Chinese, nor Japanese, nor
cared." (pp 48) ), so maybe Frank's paternal grandpa was Japanese.
The Pan-Asians, due to the "non-Intercourse Act" had been completely
isolated for two generations, which allows for Frank's Grandpa to be
100% Japanese.If so, Frank is, assuming his paternal grandpa is 100%
Japanese....1/8th? Japanese (I think.)
In any case, no way is he 1/2 Japanese (per Quonster)
Other than the name, though, there's no evidence that Granddad was any
specific race. How Japanese is the name Mitsumi? I'm unfamiliar with
details about Japanese surnames.
Steve
Richard Horton
>It IS fine to disagree with you. On the other paw, when talking about
>human beings, the term mongrel is an insult. The idea that the word
>COULD be used in a non-insulting sense, that it could be just a neutral
>descriptive term, has some attraction in an abstract sense. However, we
>do not operate in a universe of cool intellect. To call someone a
>mongrel is to use a perjorative term. I am not trying to enforce any
>kind of political correctness, just to ask for civil behavior.
Well I won't call you a mongrel, but you can call me one. I take no
offense at the term at all. I am one in the sense of being
documentably part English/French/Irish/Luxembourgois, and I wouldn't
be surprised, and wouldn't care (or would be proud, actually) if i was
also part Indian, or part Black, or part Asian.
I'm really puzzled that you see mongrel as a pejorative term. I don't
get it, honest.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
Coyu
>BTW: To Dan Goodman or the others who've told us about Quonster: Is
>this guy kidding? I mean, this is a massive put on, right?
I'm pretty sure no - I've been following him from his AOL days.
Gareth Wilson
Martin Ripa wrote:
>
> It is fascinating to see history repeat itself. Sometimes,
> when I read SHWI , I feel like I'm in 1899, in a coffee
> house in Paris, with people like Ulyanov, Bronstein,
> Djugashvilli and young boy named Lavrenti :-)
>
But I hope you don't expect any of these trollls to actually _do_ anything...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <7rn9u8$ocd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> feud...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > It is fine to disagree with me, but a mongrel is a mongrel no matter
> > how much you don't like that.
>
> human beings, the term mongrel is an insult. The idea that the word
> COULD be used in a non-insulting sense, that it could be just a neutral
> descriptive term, has some attraction in an abstract sense. However, we
> do not operate in a universe of cool intellect. To call someone a
> mongrel is to use a perjorative term. I am not trying to enforce any
> kind of political correctness, just to ask for civil behavior.
Some of us take "mongrel" to be a term of pride. It's the people (like
Quonster) who think mixed ancestry is a _bad_ thing who are confused.
Lis Carey
Peter Brülls
> Some of us take "mongrel" to be a term of pride. It's the people (like
> Quonster) who think mixed ancestry is a _bad_ thing who are confused.
I agree with the 2nd statement, but since there are no real
differences between the races, what's to be proud of being a
``mongrel?''
James Nicoll
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>Some of us take "mongrel" to be a term of pride. It's the people (like
>Quonster) who think mixed ancestry is a _bad_ thing who are confused.
They are even more confused if they think mixed ancestry is
avoidable.
James Nicoll
--
"You know, it's getting more and more like _Blade Runner_ down
here."
A customer commenting on downtown Kitchener
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net>:
>
>> Some of us take "mongrel" to be a term of pride. It's the people (like
>> Quonster) who think mixed ancestry is a _bad_ thing who are confused.
>
>I agree with the 2nd statement, but since there are no real
>differences between the races, what's to be proud of being a
>``mongrel?''
Well, it indicates that one's ancestors weren't a bunch of inbred
bigots cowering in their precious little enclaves of ethnic purity.
Not that this is anything terribly impressive.
And of course, for lots of people, not being a mongrel merely
represents a lack of opportunity among their ancestors, rather than
timidity or bigotry.
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:48:29 GMT, p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net (Pete
>McCutchen) wrote:
>
>
>>>The interesting bit is that ol Quonster/Feudalist seems well aware
>>>which role he'd occupy in the boot vs. face society he proposes. He's
>>>not only not against it, he seems to get all squirmy and giggly at the
>>>thought. I think Stirling addresses this sort of thing at one point in
>>>"Under the Yoke."
>
>>Can you explicate that a bit? I mean the part about _Under the Yoke_;
>
>Masochism as a successful survival strategy for proto-servus was what
>I had in mind.
Ah. OK.
>
>>Btw, has Q/F read the Draka books? What does he think about them?
>
>I don't think he's read them. Stirling has cleaned his clock often
>enough in soc.history.what-if that he probably never will.
>
Well, oddly enough, it seems to me that Q/F would actually like the
Drakan society. It seems to be consistent with his notion of
"feudalism."
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>In article <37dfdbcd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>In any case, there is something called "mongrel robustness;" mongrel
>>dogs live longer than purebreds.
>>
>How carefully was this tested? For example, if the biggest dogs are apt
>to be purebreed and short-lived, then that would bias the results
>unless the mongrels and purebreds were matched for size.
Nancy, why do you want to puncture my thing about "mongrel
robustness?" It's so much fun, and now you're asking all these hard
questions. Phooey, I say.
Pete McCutchen
Ripa) wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:55:27 GMT, in rec.arts.sf.written
>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>>
>>Now, if you want to see Libertarians _really_ in anguish: there's a
>>poster on soc.history.what-if who wants to have a totalitarian government
>>which enforces Objectivism.
>
>It is not surprising - Libertarianism and Objectivism are
>like Socialism and Marxism - harmless dream and deadly
>nightmare.
Well, libertarianism and objectivism do have a lower body-count.
Jonathan W Hendry
Have they been tested at a large scale?
tomwomack00
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:37e121e8...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 20:05:33 GMT, ar...@serverpha.czcom.cz (Martin
> Ripa) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:55:27 GMT, in rec.arts.sf.written
> >dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
> >>
> >>Now, if you want to see Libertarians _really_ in anguish: there's a
> >>poster on soc.history.what-if who wants to have a totalitarian government
> >>which enforces Objectivism.
> >
> >It is not surprising - Libertarianism and Objectivism are
> >like Socialism and Marxism - harmless dream and deadly
> >nightmare.
>
> Well, libertarianism and objectivism do have a lower body-count.
Only because no-one's been in a position to implement them yet. I read 'Cloak of
Anarchy' again last night; how is it that the first protection agencies in
Libertaria will be less than orders of magnitude nastier than the present-day
Mafia?
Tom
Matt Austern
> >It is not surprising - Libertarianism and Objectivism are
> >like Socialism and Marxism - harmless dream and deadly
> >nightmare.
>
> Well, libertarianism and objectivism do have a lower body-count.
As do left anarchism, fourierism, and lots of others. When a
political system has never been tried, all you can do is speculate
about how disastrous it would end up being.
Captain Button
[ snip ]
> From the Gnome Press edition, Published 1949 page 45:
> "But the Pan-Asians aren't Japanese"
> "No, and they are not Chinese. They are a mixed race, strong, proud
> and prolific. (They share the virtues and weaknesses of both). But
> from my perspective they are simply human beings who have been duped
> into the fallacy of the State as a super-entity"
> The PAN-ASIAN INVADERS were the so-called mongrels you nitwit. READ
> THE DAMNED BOOK before you post Quon-for-brains. (Also note that
> A) Heinlein thinks that their being a "mixed race" is something that
> makes them stronger and B) He considers them fallible humans like
> anyone else, not simply dismissed with the pejorative term "mongrel")
Quite right. I can't cite textual evidence, but my impression
was that in that future history [1] Japan's conquest of China
continued and succeeded. Also, I had the feeling that the
"Son of Heaven" was descended from both the Japanese and Chinese
Imperial lines.
The USA either did not fight WW2 in the Pacific, or it fought and
lost [2]. I'm inclined to the latter, as it gives explains why the
USA threw up a West Coast 'Maginot Line' defense [3] and sulked
behind it. Which had the usual weakness of such static strategies [4].
> Frank Roosevelt Mitsumi, the most sympathetic character in the book
> also has a mixed heritage, but PER HEINLEIN "...was as American as
> Will Rogers and much more American than that English aristocrat,
> George Washington" (ibid, pg 48). Frank was not half Japanese and half
> Caucasian. Same page "(his grandmother was) half Chinese and half
> wahini from Honolulu". So his father was 3/4s Chinese and 1/4th
> Hawaiian, Frank's mother was "Part Chinese, but mostly Caucasian" As
> far as I can tell, Frank has NO "Japanese blood" anywhere in him.
> Again evident, if you read the book. (Back cover descriptions don't
> count)
> I find it telling that the only people in the book who care about
> Frank's heritage are the invaders. The good guys, once assured that
> he's on their side, don't care but the invaders hunted Asian Americans
> down and killed them.
The Pan-Asians killed Frank's family and other Americans of Asian
descent not because they were 'mongrel' but because they didn't
fit anywhere in the Pan-Asians' vision of Asians as the masters
and Caucasians [5] as servants. Asian-Americans would have
been a middle ground that was not wanted.
[1] The book was published in 1941, so it was written while Japan
was fighting in China, and before the USA was at war with Japan.
[2] Yes, I know that the differences in industrial strength make
this very unlikely.
[3] Against a naval threat rather than a land threat, of course.
Is there a naval history example that would fit better here?
[4] Or should I say 'tactics' here?
[5] I don't recall any mention of African-Americans or Hispanics
in the book, but I assume they were intended to end up as servants
to the Pan-Asains also.
PS IIRC my copy had the back cover blurb starting "6 against
600,000,000!" Which means that world had slower population growth.
An interesting tidbit, since in most of his other writings Heinlein
overestimated population growth. Indeed, many of his books reflect
a deep concern about overpopulation. I wonder how much this might have
to do with his visit to Indonesia on his around-the-world trip in
the early 1950s, as chronicled in his non-fiction book "A Tramp Abroad",
IIRC.
--
[ but...@io.com ]"DOGBERRY: Marry, sir, they have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths; secondarily, they are slanders; sixth
and lastly, they have belied a lady; thirdly, they have verified unjust
things; and, to conclude, they are lying knaves." Shakespeare - _Much Ado.._
mike stone
>Quite right. I can't cite textual evidence, but my impression
>was that in that future history [1] Japan's conquest of China
>continued and succeeded. Also, I had the feeling that the
>"Son of Heaven" was descended from both the Japanese and Chinese
>Imperial lines.
Actually, Panasia emerged from A *Russian* conquest of China. One of the
characters observes that the US let down its guard, expecting Russia to be
occupied for years digesting China - and so was completely unprepared when
*China* digested Russia.
India got gobbled up later. What became of Japan, iirc was left obscure
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
"The English people are like the English beer.
Froth on top, dregs at the bottom, the middle excellent" - Voltaire
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net>:
>
> > Some of us take "mongrel" to be a term of pride. It's the people (like
> > Quonster) who think mixed ancestry is a _bad_ thing who are confused.
>
> I agree with the 2nd statement, but since there are no real
> differences between the races, what's to be proud of being a
> ``mongrel?''
It annoys the people (like Quonster) who think that pure ancestry is a
good thing. Also, secondarily, it expands the repertoire of the family
dinner menu--I mean the boring stuff you learned to make by following
your mother and grandmothers around the kitchen.
Lis Carey
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>PS IIRC my copy had the back cover blurb starting "6 against
>600,000,000!" Which means that world had slower population growth.
>An interesting tidbit, since in most of his other writings Heinlein
>overestimated population growth. Indeed, many of his books reflect
>a deep concern about overpopulation. I wonder how much this might have
>to do with his visit to Indonesia on his around-the-world trip in
>the early 1950s, as chronicled in his non-fiction book "A Tramp Abroad",
>IIRC.
TRAMP ROYALE. "A Tramp Abroad" is by Mark Twain, not Robert Heinlein.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <37E0CFD1...@mediaone.net>,
> Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> >Quonster) who think mixed ancestry is a _bad_ thing who are confused.
>
> avoidable.
If their pedigree is badly-documented, they can self-induce a certain
amount of delusion.
Lis Carey
willre...@my-deja.com
Jonathan W Hendry <jhe...@shrike.depaul.edu> wrote:
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > >It is not surprising - Libertarianism and Objectivism are
> > >like Socialism and Marxism - harmless dream and deadly
> > >nightmare.
>
> > Well, libertarianism and objectivism do have a lower body-count.
>
>
democracy and a market economy, move TOWARD libertarianism in a
meaningful way in small incriments and see what you get. On the other
hand, to move toward the usually envisaged forms of socialism is
meaningless without nationalizing the means of production. Once you do
that, you have made a major change that will be hard to undo; not
impossible but hard. If you dismantle some piece of the regulatory
state in order to move toward libertarianism, you could rebuilt it if
you thought it was a good idea.
I know a lot of libertarians, and some Libertarians, who are willing to
take it slowly and move toward a more loose and open society without
trying to impose massive change, all at once. Also, I don't think I
know a single libertarian who believes that the proper way to achieve
power is through armed insurrection; all of "us" whom I know seem quite
content with waging a long, slow, unromantic democratic struggle with
no ultimate victory, just some change in the right direction.
Bill Reich
1918 to 2018, too soon or just right?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
willre...@my-deja.com
rrho...@prodigy.net (Richard Horton) wrote:
> I'm really puzzled that you see mongrel as a pejorative term. I don't
> get it, honest.
As I said, taking mongrel as a neutral discriptive term is possible but
we don't live in a neutral intellectual world. Most people who use the
term mongrel about a human being INTEND it to be perjorative. Since the
person so described might also see it that way, I don't see much point
in using it, no matter how well-intentioned. I certainly do not see the
'idea' of being of mixed blood as being a perjorative; I am a mongrel
myself, German, Jewish, Polish, Russian. However, I find the term less
than civil, unless you know who you are describing and who is the
audience.
One of my favorite 'people' in my life was a mongrel, quite literally.
She was part Border Collie and part Spaniel. She was "the little feet
that followed behind" for fifteen years and writing this makes me weep.
So, "mongrel" can mean many things, some of them affectionate, but I
find it unfortunate to use it about a human being whose reaction will
be unkown in public discourse
Bill Reich
I expect your names to SHINE
willre...@my-deja.com
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
> >
> > In article <37dfdbcd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> > Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >In any case, there is something called "mongrel robustness;"
mongrel
> > >dogs live longer than purebreds.
> > >
> > How carefully was this tested? For example, if the biggest dogs are
apt
> > to be purebreed and short-lived, then that would bias the results
> > unless the mongrels and purebreds were matched for size.
>
> dogs. And hybrid vigor has been demonstrated in more than just dogs.
>
> Lis Carey
However, the longest-lived dogs are medium in size as opposed to the
toys and the giants. I am not disputing hybid vigor as a concept but it
usually is used in botany and involves breeding related species, not
mildly isolated breeding populations.
I wonder, as I wander even farther off-topic, if the bigger wolves,
like the 140 pound bison killers up in Wood Buffalo National Park, live
shorter lives than their more normal-sized cousins. Aside form the
occasional "work-related" fatality. Since the ancestors of all the
modern dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals was a coyote sized critter, in
fact it WAS a coyote, maybe that it is the ideal size, about forty
pounds. I would take this to alt.canid.evolution if that ng existed.
Dan Goodman
Matt Austern <aus...@sgi.com> wrote:
>p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net (Pete McCutchen) writes:
>
>> >It is not surprising - Libertarianism and Objectivism are
>> >like Socialism and Marxism - harmless dream and deadly
>> >nightmare.
>>
>> Well, libertarianism and objectivism do have a lower body-count.
>
>political system has never been tried, all you can do is speculate
>about how disastrous it would end up being.
There _have_ been working Fourieran phalanxes in the US. For some reason,
they were not long-term successes.
Martin Ripa
p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net (Pete McCutchen) wrote:
>Well, oddly enough, it seems to me that Q/F would actually like the
>Drakan society. It seems to be consistent with his notion of
>"feudalism."
No, Draka was too capitalist for Q's taste.
IMHO, the closest to Quonster's noble ideal was ancient
Sparta.
(I know that it was communist, but it has true Quonsterist
spirit)
Martin
Martin Ripa
p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net (Pete McCutchen) wrote:
>Well, libertarianism and objectivism do have a lower body-count.
It is too early.
1848-1917
1957-2026
Martin, a petty bourgeois second handed degenerate dog
gromgorru
Peter Brülls wrote in message <87n1unc...@rogue.peter.ecce-terram.de>...
>Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net>:
>
>> Some of us take "mongrel" to be a term of pride. It's the people (like
>> Quonster) who think mixed ancestry is a _bad_ thing who are confused.
>
>differences between the races, what's to be proud of being a
>``mongrel?''
Hybrid vigor.
Lucy Kemnitzer
<p...@ecce-terram.de> wrote:
>Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net>:
>
>> Some of us take "mongrel" to be a term of pride. It's the people (like
>> Quonster) who think mixed ancestry is a _bad_ thing who are confused.
>
>I agree with the 2nd statement, but since there are no real
>differences between the races, what's to be proud of being a
>``mongrel?''
>
In kindergarten our teacher had us put map pins on the world map
where our ancestors had come from. I thought the more pins you
could put in, the cooler it would be. So I stretched a few
things. Like I pushed the Jewish bit back a bit farther than I
knew I could at the time, though since then I found that I have
more recent relatives in Africa-and-the-Middle-East than I knew I
had. It would have been cool to put little pins all over Asia and
South America, too, though.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Pete McCutchen
<jhe...@shrike.depaul.edu> wrote:
>> >It is not surprising - Libertarianism and Objectivism are
>> >like Socialism and Marxism - harmless dream and deadly
>> >nightmare.
>
>> Well, libertarianism and objectivism do have a lower body-count.
>
>Have they been tested at a large scale?
>
I wondered if anybody would think about that.
Pete McCutchen
<tomwo...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:37e121e8...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 20:05:33 GMT, ar...@serverpha.czcom.cz (Martin
>> Ripa) wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:55:27 GMT, in rec.arts.sf.written
>> >dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Now, if you want to see Libertarians _really_ in anguish: there's a
>> >>poster on soc.history.what-if who wants to have a totalitarian government
>> >>which enforces Objectivism.
>> >
>> >It is not surprising - Libertarianism and Objectivism are
>> >like Socialism and Marxism - harmless dream and deadly
>> >nightmare.
>>
>> Well, libertarianism and objectivism do have a lower body-count.
>
>Only because no-one's been in a position to implement them yet. I read 'Cloak of
>Anarchy' again last night; how is it that the first protection agencies in
>Libertaria will be less than orders of magnitude nastier than the present-day
>Mafia?
That's anarcho-capitalism, so you can ask David Friedman. On my best
days I'm a minarchist.
Martin Soederstroem
rec.arts.sf.written:
>On 16 Sep 1999 12:49:38 -0600, Jonathan W Hendry
><jhe...@shrike.depaul.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>> >It is not surprising - Libertarianism and Objectivism are
>>> >like Socialism and Marxism - harmless dream and deadly
>>> >nightmare.
>>
>>> Well, libertarianism and objectivism do have a lower body-count.
>>
>>Have they been tested at a large scale?
>>
>
>I wondered if anybody would think about that.
I can only think of one ideology that has been tried on a large scale
but avoided a high body-count: social democracy. (No, I'm not a social
democrat myself. I am of a more blood-drenched ideology.)
--
Martin
Remove NOSPAM to email me.
Danny Sichel
>>>Some of us take "mongrel" to be a term of pride. It's the people (like
>>>Quonster) who think mixed ancestry is a _bad_ thing who are confused.
>> They are even more confused if they think mixed ancestry is
>> avoidable.
> If their pedigree is badly-documented, they can self-induce a certain
> amount of delusion.
"If your family tree does not fork!" - Jeff Foxworthy
Danny Sichel
>> Some of us take "mongrel" to be a term of pride. It's the people (like
>> Quonster) who think mixed ancestry is a _bad_ thing who are confused.
> I agree with the 2nd statement, but since there are no real
> differences between the races, what's to be proud of being a
> ``mongrel?''
"No real differences"?
Depending on how one defines it, there's either two races, or five
billion.
Either way, there's a very real difference.
(Or, alternately, there's just one.)
Simon Slavin
feud...@my-deja.com wrote:
> spar...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > Mitsui, an American of Asian ancestry. (Who Quonster
> > dismisses as a "mongrel Japanese".
>
> He WAS a mongrel Japanese (which means, for non-USA people like you,
> half-Caucasian).
No, he was pure-Japanese, not half-Caucasian.
> In one of the later parts, the Pan-Asians try to kill all the
> caucasians by using a device which killed only Caucasians; it didn't
> work on Mitsui, cuz he was not exactly a Caucasian. So, they changed
> the gauge to "Asian" and used that weapon, and it didn't work either.
It does work on Mitsui on the Asian setting. He's 'gelled' in
mid-jump and the corpse falls on top of the mad scientist giving
the goodies time to grab him.
Don't misunderstand me: I have no problem with Heinlein making a
hero out of a mongrel -- my granparents were one each of Russian,
Dutch, Polish, Czechoslovakian. You're just wrong.
Simon.
--
<http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk> | ... you start off with a typical message,
No junk email please. | let's say a 2.5MB Word document containing
ET may've phoned /us/. | three lines of text and a macro virus ...
Help play the tape: SETI@home. | -- Peter Gutmann
Simon Slavin
na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
> Sidetrack: Lately I've been wondering if _Atlas Shrugged_ makes more sense
> if you assume it was written about Russians.....
Don't forget Alan Moore's wonderful version of it in the graphic
novel _V_: an extreme left-wing goverment wins the election in
the UK and institutes a corrupt 1984-ish regime. Kind of a cross
between _1984_ and _Atlas Shrugged_.
Moore's version is particularly science-fictionish: the regime is
eventually brought low by a single intelligent man who uses the
different motives of the head baddies to manipulate them into
working against each-other.
Simon Slavin
na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >In any case, there is something called "mongrel robustness;" mongrel
> >dogs live longer than purebreds.
>
> How carefully was this tested? For example, if the biggest dogs are apt
> to be purebreed and short-lived, then that would bias the results
> unless the mongrels and purebreds were matched for size.
But purebred dogs /are/ bred for size. And for looks and colour
and length of fur and perkiness of ears and other non-survival
characteristics. It doesn't matter how stupid a purebred dog
is, how much trouble it has breathing, how great the chance of
infection from its weeping eyes, how short or arthritic the legs,
or how much neotony has reduced it's survival behaviour -- the
owner will take care of it ! The dog can cost thousands in
vet bills but its survival is ensured because someone values it.
Now take a collection of mongrels running wild. They can't be
over-large because it's useful to sneak through small holes and
a waste of energy dragging-around a huge body all the time.
They have to heal quickly because they get hurt so frequently.
Bad combinations of genes are weeded-out quickly because there
are so many chances to die. They have to have fairly good
personalities or else the other dogs will gang-up and kill them.
They have to be fairly tough or they'll get very little food.
So if you match purebreds and mongrels for size you no longer
have a fair sample. They're inherently of different sizes.
I can think of a few .sf. stories based around the idea of
pure-breeds meet mongrels:
John T. Phillifent: _Ethical Quotient_,
in John W. Campbell: _Analog 2_, 1962
is one of them.
Erich Schneider
> Don't forget Alan Moore's wonderful version of it in the graphic
> novel _V_: an extreme left-wing goverment wins the election in
> the UK and institutes a corrupt 1984-ish regime. Kind of a cross
> between _1984_ and _Atlas Shrugged_.
>
> Moore's version is particularly science-fictionish: the regime is
> eventually brought low by a single intelligent man who uses the
> different motives of the head baddies to manipulate them into
> working against each-other.
Based on the actual totalitarian regimes we've seen in history, you
hardly need an external manipulator to accomplish that...
I suppose the trick is making sure they _all_ kill each other off,
rather than having one come out on top and the cycle starting anew.
--
Erich Schneider er...@caltech.edu Caltech Information Technology Services
Kristopher/EOS
impression that Heinlein wrote several different versions of
this book????
Kristopher/EOS
rmk
<lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>|On 16 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0000, Peter Brülls <p...@ecce-terram.de> wrote:
>|
>|>Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net>:
>|>
>|>> Some of us take "mongrel" to be a term of pride. It's the people (like
>|>> Quonster) who think mixed ancestry is a _bad_ thing who are confused.
>|>
>|>I agree with the 2nd statement, but since there are no real
>|>differences between the races, what's to be proud of being a
>|>``mongrel?''
>|
>|Well, it indicates that one's ancestors weren't a bunch of inbred
>|bigots cowering in their precious little enclaves of ethnic purity.
>|Not that this is anything terribly impressive.
>|
>|And of course, for lots of people, not being a mongrel merely
>|represents a lack of opportunity among their ancestors, rather than
>|timidity or bigotry.
Speaking of mongrelization who remembers the scene in "True Romance"
between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken?
...rmk
--
Hamlet is the tragedy of tackling a
family problem too soon after college.
- Tom Masson (1866-1934)
William December Starr
slavins.at.hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) said:
> Don't forget Alan Moore's wonderful version of it in the graphic
> novel _V_: an extreme left-wing goverment wins the election in
> the UK and institutes a corrupt 1984-ish regime. Kind of a cross
> between _1984_ and _Atlas Shrugged_.
Left-wing???????? One of us must have read an edition of "V" that was
published in a very alternate universe.
> Moore's version is particularly science-fictionish: the regime is
> eventually brought low by a single intelligent man who uses the
> different motives of the head baddies to manipulate them into
> working against each-other.
No, the regime is eventually brought down by the machinations of a
single Human Protector on acid...
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
James Nicoll
> Don't forget Alan Moore's wonderful version of it in the graphic
> novel _V_: an extreme left-wing goverment wins the election in
> the UK and institutes a corrupt 1984-ish regime. Kind of a cross
> between _1984_ and _Atlas Shrugged_.
? In my timeline the folks running the UK in _V_ were
extreme rightists who seized power after, ims, a nuclear war.
A fair amount of stuff seemed directly analogous to the Third
Reich.
James Nicoll
--
"You know, it's getting more and more like _Blade Runner_ down
here."
A customer commenting on downtown Kitchener
benaaronovitch
jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
><SNIP>
> Which I suspect was an intentional point Heinlein was
> making ... consider that
> even his earliest stories assumed an essentially
> postracist future. I really
> doubt that Heinlein was one to look down on his fellow
> man simply because of
> the color of his skin.
> Sincerely Yours,
> Jordan
Heinlein goes out of his way to be multi-cultural in
'Starship Troopers', Rico's mothertongue is Tagalog (I
beleive that's from the Phillipines). The recruits from
Germany and Japan at the training canp. Ship names (Tshaka
being a good example)etc.
Heinlein can hardly be accused of Racism (especially when
you remember that ST was written in the late 50s).
Ben Aaronovitch
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Richard I. Pelletier
benaaronovitch <ben.aaronov...@ft.com> wrote:
> Heinlein goes out of his way to be multi-cultural in
> 'Starship Troopers', Rico's mothertongue is Tagalog (I
> beleive that's from the Phillipines). The recruits from
> Germany and Japan at the training canp. Ship names (Tshaka
> being a good example)etc.
>
Speaketh thou of the book or of the movie?
Vale,
Rip
--
Multiplication is not commutative before breakfast.
Richard I. Pelletier
NB eddress: r i p 1 [at] h o m e [dot] c o m
Jason Bontrager
Richard I. Pelletier wrote:
> In article <028b2f64...@usw-ex0102-009.remarq.com>,
> benaaronovitch <ben.aaronov...@ft.com> wrote:
>
> > Heinlein goes out of his way to be multi-cultural in
> > 'Starship Troopers', Rico's mothertongue is Tagalog (I
> > beleive that's from the Phillipines). The recruits from
> > Germany and Japan at the training canp. Ship names (Tshaka
> > being a good example)etc.
> >
> Speaketh thou of the book or of the movie?
>
> Vale,
> Rip
Hmph! There is only the Book! There is no movie, there is
no movie, there is no movie...say it with me now, there is no
movie....
Jason B.
Simon Slavin
jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> >Some of us take "mongrel" to be a term of pride. It's the people (like
> >Quonster) who think mixed ancestry is a _bad_ thing who are confused.
>
> They are even more confused if they think mixed ancestry is
> avoidable.
Mixed-ancestry is avoidable only by one's ancestors.
Coyu
>I mean, where does everyone think the Japanese came from to begin
>with? Were they created separately by God from an evolved-from-monkeys
>human race, or are they the offspring of refugees from the establishment
>of Korea and some more southern relatives of the Ainu?
Um - I'm pretty sure Quonster is _not_ Japanese. Korean, ethnic
Chinese, or just possibly Manchu.
But, man, he sure has picked up some of East Asia's weirder racial
theories. You should have seen his posts about Sammy Sosa.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <028b2f64...@usw-ex0102-009.remarq.com>,
> benaaronovitch <ben.aaronov...@ft.com> wrote:
>
> > Heinlein goes out of his way to be multi-cultural in
> > 'Starship Troopers', Rico's mothertongue is Tagalog (I
> > beleive that's from the Phillipines). The recruits from
> > Germany and Japan at the training canp. Ship names (Tshaka
> > being a good example)etc.
> >
> Speaketh thou of the book or of the movie?
All that's in the book. If you haven't read the book, you should.
Lis Carey