About Doug Hoff's Empty America

[james_davis_nicoll]

I can't seem to find the first entry. What prevented anyone from migrating to the New World before the Vikings?

[Answered in comments: It's not specified in the initial post]

If you prevent anyone from coming over the top of the world it won't prevent the Polynesians from colonizing the Americas (Sweet potatoes got to Polynesia from the New World Somehow). Well, it won't unless you have extremely well aimed butterflies, able to use the secondary and tertiary effects of whatever the barrier to colonization is up north to prevent anyone from using the trans-Pacific route.

Comments

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

There's also an early WI from the same newsgroup where much the same was done to the entire Old World, so that New World history could develop without the catastrophe of the 15th century derailing the process.

I'll admit to have gamma-ray-burstered one hemisphere or another to see what develops afterwards (and to have nuked the Northern hemisphere into near-sterility merely to discuss how humans might encourage ecological recovery most rapidly: gigadeaths for gardening, pretty much).

[kynn.livejournal.com]

There's also an early WI from the same newsgroup where much the same was done to the entire Old World...

Not the same.

Look at the last part of my comment:

...based on repeated real-world attempts to do the same thing to the same people.

Europeans have never been the targets of mass genocide by American Indians.

European-descended people sitting around thinking about "Empty Europe" is not morally equivalent to European-descended people sitting around thinking about "Empty America."

[tomscud.livejournal.com]

I don't get the creepy vibes from the Vikings-settle-America that I do from Wrede's book-as-reviewed - there's not the element of it being "Just like America, but without the non-white folks leading us down the path of sin by offering temptation, the way they were dressed and all."

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Perhaps the difference is that the Viking colonies in the New World ultimately died out.

[tomscud.livejournal.com]

Would The Years of Rice and Salt be creepy if it had originally been written in Chinese by a belligerent Chinese nationalist?

[gohover.livejournal.com]

Ha! Not to distract from your abstract point, but the creepiness would be decreased because, if I recall correctly, people from South India and North America are the enlightened heroes.

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

If it had been written by a belligerent Chinese nationalist, it would really have to be a different book, even if it was about the same story. Might well be a creepy book. If it were the same book, no matter how nationalist the author, s/he wouldn't be belligerent, at least not as the writer of that book.

[avram]

My parallel is a German author writing about an alternate Europe with no Jews. (But possibly with Christianity.)

[gohover.livejournal.com]

If you're interested In Jewish history, that could be interesting. Either there are Jews elsewhere in the author's world, in which case the author could show the differences Europe made on Jewish culture (and vice versa), or there are no Jews anywhere, in which case you can still show the differences Jews have made in the world. There are lots of non-creepy ways the subject could be handled. And no doubt there are lots of creepy ways too. But I don't think the nationality of the author is an automatic red flag - it really depends on what he or she wants to write about.

[tavella.livejournal.com]

There's an awfully big difference between writing a Germany/Europe without Jews so that you can explore how important Jews were -- in other words, the story is *about* Jews -- and erasing all those annoying dark folk so that you can have a nice clean stage to play with dragons and wizards and white people.

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

Considering that without Jews, you also don't get Christianity, or Islam... that's not something you can play around with lightly, and I would make an argument for anti-Semitism if you wrote out the Jews but not the rest of the inheritance of the Abrahamic religions. Eliminate the Jews, and you're looking at a world in which pantheistic paganisms should still reign supreme, along with all the myriad ways that will rewrite the world - after all, the Abrahamic religions have been pretty influential throughout Britain, Europe, the Middle East, Russia, northern Africa, the Americas, Australia, sub-Saharan Africa... so, you know, the ENTIRE WORLD, essentially.

So anyone writing the Jews out of existence, or even out of Europe, is going to have a hard time making a case for no anti-Semitic motive unless they rewrite human history entirely.

[gohover.livejournal.com]

At least three Jewish holidays, Purim, Passover, and Hanukkah, are often humorously summed up like this: "They tried to kill us, they failed, lets eat!" I think it is perfectly natural to ask "but what would have happened if they had killed us? (Substitute "them" for "us" if you're not Jewish).

When someone asks these questions, and tries to come up with an answer, it is conceivable that they might be doing so because they are anti-semitic, but I think it is actually more likely that someone would ask these questions because they are interested (in a good way) in the historical impact of Jews & Judaism.

Of course, there is a fourth Jewish commemoration - Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Rememberance Day) - which is different in that there isn't eating and joking and such, but one good way to "never forget" is think about what would have happened if some alternate history version of the Nazis had been more successful.

As for the presumption that everything must be different, you can ask questions like "What if every Jew converted by the year 380 CE", and then you still get Christians (and I don't know how Christianity and Islam change, but probably they do - that's the fun of alternate history.) Or, if Judaism ends a lot earlier, or never exists at all, I think an author could show other pathways to monotheism and I believe there were other cultures with a Christ figure which could have taken up the slack such that an author could plausibly describe a religion rather like Christianity. I personally am interested in yet a different point of departure: what would have happened to Judaism and to Europe if every country in Europe had simultaneously banned Jews, instead of banning them piecemeal, in non-simultaneous fits and starts as happened in our timeline. (My history is weak, I welcome corrections & insights!) What if Judaism survives, but without its European component? Again, I don't see why it is anti-semitic to wonder about these things. And if the answer to any of the above questions is "wow, not as much would change as you might think", that's a reflection of the author's opinion of how history works, not a reflection of his or her anti-semitism or racism. Bad historians with mistaken views of history are not necessarily bigots.

What about Wrede's book? I haven't read it. I don't know. But I do know that there are lots of ways to take a scenario and run with it, and I think for any scenario, if an author's intentions are good, they might just manage to write about that scenario in way that isn't even unintentionally offensive. (They might fail, but I see no reason to think that failure is the only option.) There is no need to write off a whole class of scenarios because one instance of them offended you.

I noticed that you talk about my comment on your blog. On your blog, you (and Tavella, directly above), seem to be saying that anti-semitism can be avoided in a story about Europe without Jews only as long as Jews are still the main focus. I don't understand this point of view either. If Europe without Jews is used as a background texture, designed to enrich a story, I don't see why it follows that the story has to be anti-semitic. Authors often make subtle secondary points with their worldbuilding, and these points needn't be anti-semitic or racist ones.

In general, this whole thread surprises me because so many people who disdain ethnic prejudice seem to be judging stories solely by their starting scenarios or, even worse, by the ethnic background of the author, instead judging stories on their own merits.

[mollydot.livejournal.com]

In general, this whole thread surprises me because so many people who disdain ethnic prejudice seem to be judging stories solely by their starting scenarios or, even worse, by the ethnic background of the author, instead judging stories on their own merits.

I think they're disdaining racism/oppression. In an anti-racist context, there is a difference between racial prejudice and racism. The difference is power. Racism is racial prejudice plus power. Anti Native American prejudice is racism, anti white prejudice is not.

Likewise, a Christian being anti semetic is worse than a Jew being anti Christian, as the first is backed up by centuries of oppression and genocide. An anti semetic act has more cultural and historical weight than an anti Christian act.

[gohover.livejournal.com]

I'm going to give you a personal answer, because when you think about power and bigotry, I think it is helpful to think back to when you were nine years old.

When I was nine years old, and for all of my childhood, I was the only Jewish kid in my grade (and one of two in my whole school). I got picked on quite a bit. The kids and I were not aware that their actions could carry any cultural and historical weight. And the taunts did not reflect any bigotry of their parents - they didn't think that Jews killed Christ or anything like that. They were just aware that I didn't celebrate Christmas, and that was good enough for them. I wasn't aware of any cultural or historical weight either -- I was just aware of my hurt feelings, and they were gleefully aware that they had caused some.

You know what was liberating for me? I went to an out-of-state summer camp for Jewish kids. For the whole time I was there, no one picked on me because I was Jewish. The kids picked on me for other things instead! I was a weird little kid who was inevitably going to get picked on for something! I learned that Jewish kids aren't any different than Christian kids when it comes to their capacity to be cruel to oddballs.

My wife and I were married two years ago this summer, and we want to start a family soon. If I'm fortunate enough to become a parent, and I find that my kid is part of a cluster of Jewish kids picking on a sole Christian kid, I'm not going to think about cultural and historical weight. I'm going to remember kids' universal ability to cruel, and I'm going try my best to teach my child to not be cruel.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think that all of us are nine year olds deep down inside, and all of us react in similar ways when we are treated with bigotry. Everyone deserves better. Making a distinction regarding cultural and historical weight might be interesting in a theoretical or academic sense, but I don't think it is a useful distinction if you are disdaining real world racism/racial prejudice/bigotry/oppression/cruelty.

There is more to say about Wrede's book, of course, but I'd rather focus on the idea that racism is prejudice + power. Power isn't always some abstract historical force -- sometimes it is just a gang of little kids, no matter their chronological age.

[mollydot.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the reply.

I partially agree with you - cruelty is bad (and kids are good at it), whatever group the tormentor and victim are from.

But I do think there are some actions which are bad/worse as part of a pattern. For example, asking a black person about their hair. I wouldn't mind at all if someone asked me about my hair. I might find it weird, depending on circumstances, but the question itself would likely be non-offensive (depending on how asked, of course). But from what I hear, it gets old for black people. It's asked again and again. It says you're different and weird, whether the questioners mean that or not. So, I would see that as something that is only bad as part of a pattern.

I remember, as a teen, being taught to skim stones by a boy. After a bit, he said "you're pretty good", so I started to be pleased. Then he added "for a girl". That made me feel rather inferior. I wouldn't have minded if he'd said "for a beginner", but saying "for a girl", together with over a decade of subtle cultural messages telling me that boys are better... well, I would have felt less bad if he'd said "you're pretty bad". I reckon if I'd been a boy being taught by a girl who had said "for a boy", it would have been much easier to laugh off. So that's an example where I think something is worse as part of a pattern.

Another, more drastic example, would be bigotry related murder. While the victim is just as dead no matter what group they and the murderer belong to, and it's just as awful for the family and friends, I reckon say someone being murdered/attacked by a straight person for being gay is more threatening for other gay people than a straight person being killed by a gay person for being straight would be for other straight people. The first would be another example/reminder of how gay people are violently hated by some; the second, I personally have never heard of. In fact, the second might even be more threatening for gay people than straight, because of fear of retaliatory attacks.

On the substantive issue of whether it's ok to write certain groups out of history, well, I haven't come down firmly on either side. But I must admit, I'm paying more attention to your argument now that I know you're Jewish! Am I being prejudiced? :-) But seriously, you would have a much better idea how Jews (and one particular Jew especially :-) ) would feel to be written out than I would.

And also because you replied. I was just skimming before. I just picked up on your last paragraph cos it looks very like the "you're the racist" argument on the anti-racism bingo card. (worth a google if you're interested)

[tomscud.livejournal.com]

I'm actually thinking of similarities to a certain science fiction TV series featuring the Confederacy without slavery. Transposed into SPAAACE.

[avram]

With the slavery transposed over onto the Union-analog side!

[fridgepunk.livejournal.com]

Hey! The one ethnic group Firefly DID have is african americans - admittedly they were all (except for one nice one who was never really developed as a character with a past and history) villains who worked for the Evil Empire Union against the heroic freedom loving confederate analogue characters.

Okay, the first rule of Firefly is not to analyse it too much, but still Oh Joss Whedon No.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Are you forgetting Zoe?

[fridgepunk.livejournal.com]

Did zoe ever get any more backstory than "she was Mal's buddy from the war who's married to wash"?

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Is that notably less than the others got?

[mollydot.livejournal.com]

Or, if not Zoe, Book?

Book always gets forgotten. Including by me.