Mars=the wild west

[sqbr]

I am so unbelievably low on spoons right now I cannot express it (on the plus side this is as a result of building myself to have a Serious Conversation About My Future at work, which is now done. More on that when things are more settled)

But something on Foxtel just now I wanted to note: a documentary about possible terraforming of Mars explicitely comparing it to "other frontiers through history", with images from the American West and talk about how "Colonists would do the same thing all colonists have done, packing light and preparing the land as they go..".

Some context: For those not aware of it, there is a Big Conversation happening right now about A fantasy novel with an American frontier..minus the American Indians(*). And one of the major points which has been brought up is that without indiginous peoples to exploit (not to mention indentured workers and slaves) the american colonists would have died, or at least not expanded so fast or so easily. In lots of ways the whole myth of the Frontier is a horrible racist lie.

And it's a lie with a lot of attraction to nerds, and this documentary illustrates that pretty well.

As to comments: I probably am not up to answering them, not for a while. And no playing BINGO.

(*)In case you can't find a synopsis in there, I shall arbitrarily pick one by someone I know :) And yes, that is my favourite author in the whole world making a racist ass of herself :(

Comments

[aris_tgd]

I think there's something worth exploring in this notion of "charting new frontiers" as "getting out there and taking stuff because it doesn't belong to anyone". I mean, it really shortcuts around the work-reward society, doesn't it? It's very much an Objectivist fantasy, where your entire worth is measured by what you can acquire on your own, without anyone giving anything to you.

Of course, this ignores not only the people who might already be living on the land you're claiming, but also all the codependent work that actually goes on in homesteading. If the one wasn't fail enough already, the myth of the Man Who Goes And Conquers New Land fails even on its own merits.

[sami]

Yeah, I thought I remembered you really liked LMB's books. I also had a feeling that your recent silence was probably due to spoons shortage and didn't want to push awareness of it on you if you weren't reading pages, etc.

:non-huggy reassurances: I'm sorry it's LMB being all silly like this.

[sqbr]

Actually my silence was the result of starting several long rambly posts but always running out of steam halfway through :D

Oh I'm not one of these people who gets totally put off books if the author turns out to be a douche, I even read Orson Scott card still sometimes (and conversely, I don't get upset if people say bad stuff about authors I like). That and I already thought she was kinda racist, though not to the extent of such gratuitous pantslessness.

Still, it's soured the little daydream I had of meeting her one day. I shall just stick with the books.

What I find interesting, actually, is that people have been talking about race (and the lack of any variation thereof. Though I always read the Cetagandans as pseudo-Japanese) in the Vorkosigan books, but it's much more of an issue in her other series. Something noone seems to have brought up, and I mean to ask about when I am spoonier, is how American Indians feel about her Sharing Knife books, since from the ones I've read they are a very thinly veiled Farmers vs Indians star-crossed lovers story. They didn't scream "Racist othering" to me, but didn't feel amazingly insightful either. The Chalion books, on the other hand, are most definitely anti-muslim. They own slaves! And are homophobic! And narrow minded! Except the one nice gay muslim couple who had to escape to nice safe western europe after being tortured by the mean muslims. They're ok.

[sanguinity]

:: "Colonists would do the same thing all colonists have done, packing light and preparing the land as they go..". ::

THE LAND WAS ALREADY PREPARED WHEN THEY GOT THERE. The so-called pilgrims walked into fallow farm fields, ready to cultivate, because the owners had died from European plagues. AND THIS SORT OF CRAP WAS HAPPENING ALL OVER.

"Packing light," yeah, that's why they abandoned so many heirloom dressers going across the Rockies. Wanna know who packed light? THOSE WHO WERE PUSHED OFF OF FARMLAND AND HAD TO ADOPT NOMADCY FOR SURVIVAL. Oh, and did I mention that farmland was prepared and ready to use?

Sorry for all the capslock, but it's been a caplocks sort of linkfest.

[daedala]

Oh. Wow. I totally missed that about Chalion.

Which I admit to have mostly forgotten. I was so incredibly angry about the free-pass-for-waterboarding that I haven't read anything of hers since.

In which your comment prompts me to ponder aimlessly

[sqbr]

Agreed on all counts.

As it happens a little while after I wrote my post someone on my flist reading list (rlist?) pointed out that Star Trek relies on this idea. And of course there ARE people out there "where no one has gone before". Just not any humans. (Well, except when there are)

Though I guess exploring to see what's there is less inherently problematic than colonisation, since in theory you can just go over the hill, meet the locals, swap maps, and go home again. Of course afaict from my limited knowledge of history pretty much the only time exploration doesn't turn into colonisation is when (a)The locals are too powerful to take over or (b) It's inhospitable.

this ignores not only the people who might already be living on the land you're claiming, but also all the codependent work that actually goes on in homesteading

I was thinking about this last night, and while humans have of course colonised genuinely empty land in the past (the whole world was empty once! Though then I guess in some cases there's the conflicts with Neanderthals etc. Hmm) I'm not sure modern westerners have. There's places like the Moon or Antartica, but that's not a colony in any self sufficient sense, it's an outpost. So the Myth has no basis in fact.

[sqbr]

I was so incredibly angry about the free-pass-for-waterboarding that I haven't read anything of hers since.

I get the feeling I don't want to know, but..the what?

[sqbr]

I think capslock is entirely justified under the circumstances.

[daedala]

That is how I read Paladin of Souls. Ista helped torture a man to death. I don't think the narrative ever really took responsibility for that. It seemed, if I recall correctly and I may not, to be handled as a regrettable necessity, and the correct words were never used.

[annwfyn]

I am actually quite depressed at the two authors involved in this. I really really liked both of them as writers, and I hate the fact that they are both acting like idiots.

*sighs*

And the more I think about the premise for the Thirteeth Child, the bigger the holes I see in it and the worse it gets. Bah. Anyway, just leaving a comment to say I know your pain of seeing your favourite writer screwing up.

[sqbr]

I may be interrogating the text from the wrong perspective, but here's how I saw that:

To me it felt like it was a regrettable necessity while dy Lutez was volunteering, but once he withdrew his consent and they forced him to keep going they crossed the line into immorality, and that's why they both felt so incredibly guilty, to the extent of Ista going mad for a while.

I may have to reconsider should I reread the book.

[sqbr]

She has now randomly turned up in the comments on the lj of ONE OF MY FRIENDS. I mean the stuff she's saying there isn't too bad, it's just a hamfisted apology, but still.

[daedala]

Oh, I agree that it was ok, for certain values of ok, while there was consent. In a sort of YKIOKBNMK kinda way. :)

The thing is, the line was crossed, and I don't think feeling really guilty and going mad for a little while are sufficient recompense for, well, waterboarding a man to death. It was clear that she helped to kill him; I don't think the narrative really made it clear that it was torture. I may be misremembering on that point.

I spent a very long time in a major clinical depression. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but I don't think it would pay one's debt to society for that sort of thing, either.

[sqbr]

It was clear that she helped to kill him; I don't think the narrative really made it clear that it was torture

Hmm. Point. I think I have some holes in my ethical framework with regards to torture I need to poke at, because it's not something I've thought about very hard before (I mean I'm against the usual "governments do it to get information" sort, but there's more to it than that)

HMM. I guess...I don't hold fantasy characters to the same rules as regular people. Because they're all classist and sexist and go around murdering people and doing all sorts of weird things because of Destiny/The Gods. Or something. Yet I've been irritated myself by very similar plotlines in other fantasy. Man, you've got me thinking now, my brain hurts :)

[daedala]

Hmm. How about the internal consistency angle?

Consider how many of her bad guys are signaled as such by torturing people. The reader is supposed to be sickened and appalled by what Bothari does in Warrior's Apprentice, not okay with it. Torture is very explicitly tied to rape, too. Serg Vorbarra, Ges Vorrutyer, the Cendagandans in Ethan of Athos, the people who tortured whassname in Curse of Chalion, the villain in Hallowed Hunt, and there are probably more because it is actually a pretty big theme of hers. It happens in a lot of books.

Only in Paladin of Souls is torturing someone presented as anything other than sickening, appalling, and marking-of-villainy. There are some differences -- Ista is a woman, Ista was doing it for the good of her country (or thought she was, and wasn't that a creepy bit of Milgram-esque self-justification?), Ista didn't enjoy it -- but the fact remains that she did it.

I'm sorry to hurt your brain. :( I'm frankly obsessed with ethics lately. I need to get some Real Philosophy Texts.

[sqbr]

It's not that I mind having my brain hurt, it's just that it means my response to "Well what about blah?" is likely to be "Um. I don't know. Good point." :)

For example, when I ask myself "How is Ista different from those other torturers?" my brain responds with "I don't know, she just is! I think.". Which is not very useful.