'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)

[jason taylor]

Seems likely enough. The Imperium would probably glorify the more benign and less extravagantly(at least for their time) evil empires that did things like building roads, taxing efficiently and keeping peace. They would be ambiguous about Byzantium; their religious enthusiasm would be rather uncouth by 3I standards as Impies would consider any enthusiasm beyond harmless eccentricity as rather uncouth. The religious persecution and religious feuding they would certainly decry though some annoying people would point out that it was really no different then the Psionic Suppressions. And of course the frequent changes of regimes by overly vigorous methods would NOT be approved of. However the Imperials would praise the things normally praised about Byzantium; the protection of Europe against invaders, the preservation of antique culture and the simple determination to survive.

China would certainly be praised as was said. As would be Rome. I once pictured that Imperial ideology would when making references to Terra would make poetic metaphors about "The Eagle, the Dragon, and the Lion, the empires of the West, East, and South(the lion is Ethiopia; I don't know much about ancient Ethiopia and from what I do know it wouldn't fit the narrative of Imperial Culture well. But it does fit well from the poetic point of view and rather completes the thing).

South American Empires would certainly be passed over. However the mystery surrounding them would make them something of a minority interest. Tibet would in some circles continue to have the same curious exoticism, even though real life Tibet was just another culture and the local monks were just as brutal to their serfs and just as given to feuding as any other overlord class whether clerical or aristocratic.

The British Empire would certainly gain approval. It would have the right combination of sort-of-liberalism, and Imperialism to please the Imperial ideology. They would probably disapprove of the nationalist movements in the British empire. The Imperium would definitely approve of the late Habsburg Empire-the Habsburgs of Maria Theresa, exotic coffee, hussars, and sound of music that is, not the Habsburgs of Charles V who were after all rather overenthusiastic, don't you know. They would appreciate the ideal of knitting together several nations in, er, harmonious, kind of, loyalty to a single dynasty and bringing peace to Central Europe. They would also note that once the Habsburgs were gone the Nazis gobbled up everyone and when they left the Staliniests took what was left. The Imperium would not like Revolutionaries. No not at all. Americans would be an exception to that because they were the embryo of the Terran Confederation whose ideals did contribute to the Imperium.

Hollernzollerns would not be approved of by the Imperium as compared to the Habsburgs. But the disapproval would be mild. Old Fritz they wouldn't mind but Kaiser Bill they would agree was a spoiled Royal Brat.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

At the risk of being a wet blanket (though not, for once, a canonista, since AFAIK there's no definite canon on the subject), I really can't see the Imperium spending much effort on spinning 4 and 5,000 year old history. No doubt there will be Imperiophile historians who will produce highly biased stinkers, but no more than the numbers of Imperioclastic hatchet jobs, and both sides will be despised by mainstream historians. And the Imperial Powers That Be will be sublimely indifferent. How much effort does the American government put inot spinning the collapse of the Roman Republic? How much effort do the Scandinavian countries put into covering up the murderous habits of the Vikings?

Nor do I think any of them will pay much attention to the history of pre-spaceflight countries, not even on Old Earth or Old Vland or Old Sylea. The history of the Terran Confederation and the Rule of Man is probably present (in a suitably vague and distorted version) in the Great Public Conciousness, but the fiddly details will be unknown to the great majority.

Why would the Imperium care about what people think of empires and republics in general? To Imperial citizens, the Imperium is unique. There's never been anything like it before[*]. Historical planetbound empires are different enough to be completely moot.

[*] OK, I'm getting a little bit canonista. sorry, I'll try to rein it in.

Hans

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

The Historical Narrative(Part Two)

It would seem to me that Byzantium, The Islamic States, and most of India's history would be downplayed. Far too religious and disturbing. China's history on the otherhand makes great Imperial propoganda. The British Raj, especially the recovery of so much of India's culture and literature by British enthusiasts, would get coverage.

The Incas might or might not get coverage, however the Aztecs would be used as a prototype of a warped and dangerous society along with the Nazis and Stalinists.

More later.

Oh do offer your reactions and objections.

The East Romans an the pre British 'Indians' are 'too religious and disturbing' but China isn't? Does not compute. Religion has played a huge role in Chinese history.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

The Historical Narrative(Part One)

Every culture has it's own historical narrative. Example, the Modern West attempts to go as far back as practical, Islamic societies often prefer to ignore everything pre-Islamic. In the West we fight over which cultures to include, in Islamic cultures the secularists and Nationalists fight to include pre-Islamic history and the Islamists struggle to erase the same.

The 3I would clearly need to deal with Earth's history, but they would also shape the narrative for their legitamacy. One assumes that the English and American Civil Wars and the American Revolution would be seriously downplayed. Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, Cromwell, would all be hot potatoes. Irish history would also be downplayed, for similar reasons, and Gandhi would be passed over in silence.

On the other hand the French and Russian Revolutions would recieve great deals of attention, as would the whole of French history from the Wars of Religion to the Fall of the 3rd Republic. France would get used as a lesson in what Nobles shouldn't do, the dangers of religious fanaticism, and the limits of republican governments.

The British Empire (a severely bowlerisied version) would be seen as a ideal. Churchill, and his more generous statements, would be forgrounded. F.D.R. would be a walk-on character, Eleanore wouldn't be mentioned.

More speculations later.

This seems not only very Terrocentric, but too much focused on Europe and the US.
You've also used a small slice of Earth's history, just a few centuries. What about Sargon of Akkad? He's arguably as relevant to citizens of the Imperium as is George Washington. I doubt that most people living so far in the future would know or care much about the times, places, and people you mention. They would have events much closer to them in time, things from the history of the Third Imperium and perhaps the Second , things to which they could better relate. Let's not forget the much longer history of the Ziru Sirka! The founding of the Ziru Sirka would be many orders of magnitude more important than some petty colonial rebeliion on Earth in prestarflight times (AR), or the four year disruption/breakup of some obscure planet-bound federation(ACW).

There are many other inhabited worlds, all with their own histories. I agree that Earth, like Vland and Sylea, probably gets a disproportinate level of attention from historians and pop culture- but let's not forget about the many other worlds of the Imperium . The sheer volume of information avaiilable toTU historians boggles the mind...

The only reason why most people would have heard of the ancient polity known as the 'United States of America' , IMO, is the Solomani-Vilani First Contact at Barnard's Star. That's a fun bit of anicent history trivia, the sort of thing your pull out at a party to look clever. The USA lasted only a few centuries as a soveriegn power. It was brought under the rule of the TC just a few hundred years after it came into being. Historians specialized in the stellar-transitional era of Terran history would know some American history, of course.


YMMV, as always

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

At the risk of being a wet blanket (though not, for once, a canonista, since AFAIK there's no definite canon on the subject), I really can't see the Imperium spending much effort on spinning 4 and 5,000 year old history. No doubt there will be Imperiophile historians who will produce highly biased stinkers, but no more than the numbers of Imperioclastic hatchet jobs, and both sides will be despised by mainstream historians. And the Imperial Powers That Be will be sublimely indifferent. How much effort does the American government put inot spinning the collapse of the Roman Republic? How much effort do the Scandinavian countries put into covering up the murderous habits of the Vikings?

Hans

The government? Almost none. Academia? A LOT more effort...

A lot of times, the world of academia can be counted upon to align itself with the government's ideals and sing along in harmony out of fear of being legislated into becoming the chorus of the government's song...

Given that there is canon for Psychohistory projects, I'd expect Academia to be discrediting anything which discredits the 3I's efficacy, authority, or authenticity. Mostly because Psychohistory is likely to be done through academia.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

The USA probably does get a disproportionate amount of attention for one reason: it's influence on the development of the Imperial bill of rights, which is derived from that of the Sylean Federation, which is derived from that of the Rule of Man, which is derived from that of the Terran Confederation, which is derived from the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even disproportionate attention does not necessarily amount to very much, though.


Hans

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

The government? Almost none. Academia? A LOT more effort...

A lot of times, the world of academia can be counted upon to align itself with the government's ideals and sing along in harmony out of fear of being legislated into becoming the chorus of the government's song...

Given that there is canon for Psychohistory projects, I'd expect Academia to be discrediting anything which discredits the 3I's efficacy, authority, or authenticity. Mostly because Psychohistory is likely to be done through academia.

The point I'm making is that I don't think that the history of pre-starflight planetary empires would be considered significant enough to discredit anything about the Imperium's efficacy, authority, or authenticity. On top of that, not only do I not see old, old history as being relevant to the Imperium, I see the Imperium as being far too powerful to need to care about good press even if it had been relevant.

As for the canon on psychohistory, the first major experiment was the one that caused the Psionic Suppressions and there hasn't been a second major one since. It follows that any other Imperium-wide psychohistory project is contrary to canon!! (Oh dear, there I go canonistaing again -- sorry!)


Hans

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Imperial Bill of Rights?
:()

I thought this was a non-canonista thread? Shouldn't I be allowed to bring my own non-canon ideas to the table?

Ah, another way your YTU differs from the 'OTU'?

Now, hold on a minute. There's a huge difference between being provably different from the OTU (contradicting existing canon) and merely touching on something that canon doesn't cover. Do you have any proof that there isn't an Imperial bill of rights in the OTU? Why shouldn't the Imperium have inherited one from the Sylean Federation? Why shouldn't the Federation have inherited one from the Rule of Man? Why shouldn't the RoM have inherited one from the Terran Confederation?

Okay, cool. What's it like, though?

In broad strokes just like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with appropriate amendments (e.g. 'sophont' instead of 'human'). Just how it is interpreted and what parts are enforced in 1105 is another question entirely.


Hans

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

I removed the 'emoticon' because I thought it might confuse you...But I was too late.
:()

Just what is the emotion, BTW? Are the two parenthesises two lips? Is it a blabbermouth? ;-)


Hans

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

It's a Canonista who has just been goosed by a Blue Darrian.

Wow! Talk about esoteric!


Hans