Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

I'm not sure why Astromancer brought up the United States.

Are you going for 'Yanks in Spaaaaace!', Astromancer?

(Nothing wrong with Yanks in Spaaace, if that's what you like. I dislike it it, for my own part. YMMV)

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

Not if it enumerated the rights the Imperium was not allowed to infringe rather than the rights the Imperium intended to force the member worlds to grant their people.

Well, except IYTU, of course. ;-)


Hans

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

I must confess that I've never spent much thought about how it is implemented in the Imperium. I just have a vague notion that there's considerable cultural baggage that can be traced back to the Terran Confederation and its antecedents. Is there anything in particular about the Declaration that you consider antithetical to the Imperium? What exactly is the problem?


Hans

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

Have you read H. Beam Piper's short story, 'A Slave is a Slave'?


SPOILER WARNING........................................... ...









































































The Empire doesn't interfere much with the internal affairs of member worlds.It bans atomic weapons, controls hyperspace travel, and seems to play a role in regulating commerce. It does impose a slavery ban, but such things as the rights of freedmen and the actual abolition of slavery are left up to the member worlds.


I think that Marc Miller probably used Piper's Terro-Human Future history as one of his major sources of inspiration.

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

I never said the wording was identical.

Are there any of those rights you feel the Imperium would disagree with? "No way do aliens have the right not to be discriminated against!" "Women equal with men? You got to be kiidding me!" "Educating the lower classes is a no no!"

Several of them are, in fact, mentioned either explicitly or implicitly as existing in the Imperium. Imperial nobles have no special priviledges before the law. Equal rights for aliens. No gender distinction in military careers. No chattel slavery.

An early bit shows the Imperium subsidizing elementary education, but I'm not adverse to considering that a boo-boo (It would be nice to find an explanation that worked, though).
That doesn't invalidate the rights it sponsored.

Just tear up the whole document? You don't think there are parts those military men (and women ;-) ) would consider worth while preserving?


Hans

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

Are you arguing or discussing?
If you are arguing, you need to present your Imperial Bill of Rights for consideration. Anything less is grossly unfair, as you can move the goalposts again and again until you 'win.' You wrote that it was 'just like' the UDHR, in 'broad strokes' with 'some modifications.' That's too vague for anyone to have a clear idea of what you meant, but it does indicate a strong similarity in the two documents.

Now, back in discussion mode-

IYTU, the Imperium may be essentially a secular liberal state with 'Western/democratic values.'

IMTU, the Imperium is not like that. It rules the space among worlds, not the worlds themselves. It is essentially a hegemonic, monarchial, aristocratic regime with no pretensions of 'democracy.' It doesn't do much of anything for the rights or welfare of 'citizens of the Imperium', at least not in any direct manner. Slavery is officially banned, but that ban doesn't prevent things like the 'fortunate servitude' among the Irhardre race. The Imperium is concerned mainly with controlling and protecting interstellar commerce, and not so much with abstract notions of 'rights.'


That pragmatic attitude is somewhat modified, IMTU, by the Church. Even so, the member worlds would not, as you pointed out, wish to accede to a busy-body Imperium. The Church's moral influence is largely just that- moral.

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

Many church groups did have and use influence. I mentioned the ministers who tried to pressure Lincoln. There seem to have been limits. Amorphus, ill-defined, but limits.

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

Private as in "I'm not going to rub your nose in what I do in my off hours." FDR didn't dwell on his faith. Lincoln brought up God only in formal speeches, and then stayed nondenominational (at least in 19th century terms).

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

That would make sense as an act of humility before one's God.

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

In tooth and nail political in-fighting Hamilton attacked Jefferson for personal irreligion. Neither Hamilton nor Washington, both Christians, ever objected to Jefferson's saying the United States wasn't a Christian Nation. And Hamilton was Washington's editor/speech writer-polisher when Washington declared that America wasn't based on religion and the Jews and Mohammedans could be just as good Americans as anyone else. Hamilton said nothing about that.

Hamilton didn't object to Jefferson's saying America wasn't a Christian nation. He objected to both Slavery and a government which he saw as too decentralised to hold the nation together. Different issues.

I could easily see a "Decentralise the Empire to protect our freedoms" faction fighting a "Centralise the Empire so it's strong enough to protect our freedoms" faction. The in-fighting would be epic and nasty.