Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 18:45:01 +0000
Chris Maxfield wrote:
> It just makes no historical sense inspite of what is written. Disbelief
> should be suspended, not hung from the neck until dead. :-)

Good image!

For my part I think the Shadowrun authors has one, chief, problem.
They have to create a world that should, and does, offer extreme
variety in playing styles. This is not an easy task, and in trying to
create room for one style they restrict a bit at another. If you are
personally very sure what you are and what you are not going to do,
and how you want things to be, it should not be a problem changing
things to suit your playing style. If you are less sure, it's
probably smarter to leave things as they are - that way you won't
have more consistency problems than necessary. But if you change
things, make sure the players also know, and that you can
sufficiently reason out the change. (For instance, the Decker Haven
would more likely be in Copenhagen, in Denmark, than Sweden, since
Copenhagen has the 'Fristaden' - 'Free City'. I do not
understand the mechanics behind that Free City, though. (Any of the
list's Danes care to elaborate?). The changes you have problems with,
I do too. Germany, if my memory is correct, has been a country rather
than a collection of states since Bismarck. There is little sentiment
for sundering this country. (Ignoring the artificial division into
east/west). As for China, it is less stable and might sunder under
pressure from an awakening, but becoming a country of Warlords?
Ghengis Khan wannabes? It's POSSIBLE, but it could stand some
explaining. Neither is the books consistent - if there's warlords in
China, they'd want mercs, while in FoF they claim there's few arenas
of open conflict and their discourse on the future of war fails as
well. (Yes, they mention China, IIRC, but a country of that size -
1/3 of the world's population - would be a HUGE market for mercs!).

If I may offer a suggestion... don't worry about the world too much.
If you want to introduce an area, go through details enough to make
it believable and lifelike and with a past and a future, but until
then, don't sweat it... if someone wants a character to be an exiled
warlord, perhaps have him think of a few why's and why not's. Don't
waste brainpower on explaining the whole world. If you want
suggestions for specific areas, It'd be fun to discuss, though. ;)

--
Fade

"Do you wish to dance with Lucretia, Mr. President?"
Message no. 2
From: Rick Musci <Chocobo219@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 13:11:43 EST
In a message dated 10/25/98 8:44:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
runefo@***.UIO.NO writes:

> As for China, it is less stable and might sunder under
> pressure from an awakening, but becoming a country of Warlords?
> Ghengis Khan wannabes? It's POSSIBLE, but it could stand some
> explaining.

Its more likely for that to happen. If you recall the early 1900's you'd
remember that most of China was sundered by Warlords. Even as the Communists
came to power, Warlords still retained control of most of northern China.
That's probably the reason that the author split China into Warlord states,
because its happened in the fairly recent past.

Steel Katana
Message no. 3
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 02:47:53 EST
In a message dated 10/25/1998 1:13:38 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Chocobo219@***.COM writes:

>
> Its more likely for that to happen. If you recall the early 1900's you'd
> remember that most of China was sundered by Warlords. Even as the
Communists
> came to power, Warlords still retained control of most of northern China.
> That's probably the reason that the author split China into Warlord states,
> because its happened in the fairly recent past.

I just thought I'd pass along this little reminder concerning SR
history/timeline(s). The primary timeline is a mirror image advanced one
hundred years. Compare major events in the early twentieth century with early
events of the 21st century. It has given me some clues as to other neat
things to come.

the 60's...hmmm...missile crisis in cuba........presidential assassinations
..... hmmm...

-K
Message no. 4
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 07:48:54 -0500
On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, K in the Shadows wrote:

->In a message dated 10/25/1998 1:13:38 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
->Chocobo219@***.COM writes:
->
->>
->> Its more likely for that to happen. If you recall the early 1900's you'd
->> remember that most of China was sundered by Warlords. Even as the
->Communists
->> came to power, Warlords still retained control of most of northern China.
->> That's probably the reason that the author split China into Warlord states,
->> because its happened in the fairly recent past.
->
->I just thought I'd pass along this little reminder concerning SR
->history/timeline(s). The primary timeline is a mirror image advanced one
->hundred years. Compare major events in the early twentieth century with early
->events of the 21st century. It has given me some clues as to other neat
->things to come.
->
->the 60's...hmmm...missile crisis in cuba........presidential assassinations
->..... hmmm...

Well, we've already had a presidential assassination <remove hat
in reverence of Dunkhelzan>, missile crisis? Ares going to get ticked at
someone? }:-)

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 5
From: Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:37:55 +1100
At 13:11 25/10/98 EST, Rick Musci wrote:
>Its more likely for that to happen. If you recall the early 1900's you'd
>remember that most of China was sundered by Warlords. Even as the Communists
>came to power, Warlords still retained control of most of northern China.
>That's probably the reason that the author split China into Warlord states,
>because its happened in the fairly recent past.

I disagree. China suffered the warlords because of special historical
circumstances not because China has any special tendency to warlords. A
weak central government, justified purely by military power and no other
moral authority, choosing to govern the provinces through reliance on
military power thereby legitimizing the authority of local military
leaders. With the central government growing still weaker and regional
military commanders finding military support from local interests and
foreign powers, or relying on their own legitimacy, the warlords came to
power. These special historical circumstances are now, well, history.

These were pretty special historical circumstances can, possibly, inflict
any nation, not just China. Look at UCAS. A weak central government, legal
private armies for hire, foreign (corporate) military powers within the
state, etc.

China tends far more to unity, historically speaking, than just about any
other country on earth. Unfortunately, in some people's minds once makes a
trend. So because it's happened before, people are familiar with it and
"it's cool" is the reason it was specified - not because it's more likely
to happen in China than anywhere else.
Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.
Message no. 6
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:58:35 -0500
At 08:37 AM 10/26/98 , you wrote:

>I disagree. China suffered the warlords because of special historical
>circumstances not because China has any special tendency to warlords. A
>weak central government, justified purely by military power and no other
>moral authority, choosing to govern the provinces through reliance on
>military power thereby legitimizing the authority of local military
>leaders. With the central government growing still weaker and regional
>military commanders finding military support from local interests and
>foreign powers, or relying on their own legitimacy, the warlords came to
>power. These special historical circumstances are now, well, history.

Right now there is a strong central government, justified purely through
militray power and no moral authority, choosing to govern the provinces
through a reliance on military and communist party power. Local governments
are finding outside support through outside powers (Nike, Ford, etc) and
are gaining in strength. The military is large, but mostly conscription and
poorly trained. Equipment is getting better but is still old. Money is
there now for the military because of the economy, but they are starting to
get caught up in the entire Asian financial crisis.

The entire upper power structure is made up of people in their 70's at
least who won't be around forever. They are vastly overpopulated. If the
country gets caught in the Asian economies problems, there will be problems
in the country in a big way.

>China tends far more to unity, historically speaking, than just about any
>other country on earth. Unfortunately, in some people's minds once makes a
>trend. So because it's happened before, people are familiar with it and
>"it's cool" is the reason it was specified - not because it's more likely
>to happen in China than anywhere else.

Maybe I could believe it if you said that China has had more time unified
than any other country, but that would only be because they have had one of
the longest histories than anyone else. There were just too many other
times when the country was anything but. Chinese history is filled by
strong emperors that have united China, only to have it fall back agin into
several smaller countries after a generation or two. The Warring States
period is a prime example, along with what happened after Genghis Khan died
and it was split up again.

Chinese peasnts in general have a history of excepting whatever government
is above them and plowing right on in the fields. For most of them, it
doesn't matter whether they turn in their taxes to Beijing or the local
warlord. Either way he pays his taxes and has no say whatsoever about what
happens with the money. So they accept it and go along with their lives.

Sommers
Homepage comming soon!
Message no. 7
From: Shaun Gilroy <shaung@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:01:25 -0500
At 12:37 AM 10/27/98 +1100, you wrote:
[snip]
>
>China tends far more to unity, historically speaking, than just about any
>other country on earth. Unfortunately, in some people's minds once makes a
>trend. So because it's happened before, people are familiar with it and
>"it's cool" is the reason it was specified - not because it's more likely
>to happen in China than anywhere else.

Are you familiar with the Maoist regime currently in power in China? It
was decades ago that students were gunned down in Tiennenmen square for
disagreeing with the People's Government (even though it was the Mao
santioned method of doing so).

If the current government were to fall from power, there would be a large
power vacum in China, as the People's Government rules (not only laws, but
also the very culture of China) with an iron fist. AFAIK chinese citizens'
rights to bear children are still rationed out.

IMHO that's a time-bomb waiting to go off.

(>)noysh the spoonë bard
-> jack of all trades, master of none. <-
Message no. 8
From: Brian Wong <rook@*****.INFINEX.COM>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 08:00:00 -0800
> I just thought I'd pass along this little reminder concerning SR
> history/timeline(s). The primary timeline is a mirror image advanced one
> hundred years. Compare major events in the early twentieth century with early
> events of the 21st century. It has given me some clues as to other neat
> things to come.

62 years.

And for most of the world; the same people that hate and like each
other today did so 50 years ago, and often 100 years ago, and still often
200+ years ago.

Notable changes:
Western Europe now gets along. They were forced to realize
how similar they where to each other by a US occupation force.

Middle East changed from Christian vs. Muslim to Jew
vs. Muslim. But it's still euro vs. Arab. The euros just
changed religion.

Everywhere else it's still the same conflicts.

But most important. More important than anything else I've said. All
the things that have happened fit into a straight forward, logical progression with
no real suprises or unexplained events.

SO reading the SR timeline; everything should stay consistant to
the new paradigms. Yet it often doesn't.

I'm still wondering how the native americans boosted their
populations so much. I read through Nat Am Nat Vol 2 last night and it
said that only 1-10% (depending on tribe) of them where of euro ancestry;
the rest are natives. They go from < 1million in all of north america today
to several hundred million in 62 years... and in between the USA tries to
genocide them...

I and other could go on for hours on things like this. SR is fun;
but it takes a more than a grain of salt. Heck it takes a whole horse sized
salt-rock to take it.

I can accept the magic shift much easier than the lack of
internal consistancy.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG Town Hall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html Super Hero Links
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 9
From: "Blair A. Monroe" <bmonroe@******.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 12:02:44 -0500
At 08:00 AM 10/26/98 -0800, Brian Wong wrote:
> I'm still wondering how the native americans boosted their
>populations so much. I read through Nat Am Nat Vol 2 last night and it
>said that only 1-10% (depending on tribe) of them where of euro ancestry;
>the rest are natives. They go from < 1million in all of north america today
>to several hundred million in 62 years... and in between the USA tries to
>genocide them...
>


Though quite possibly a more extreme a rate of growth than is realistic, I
suspect it is also not as simple as it seems on the surface. For one, it
depends on what they were referring to as "euro ancestry". Are they
referring to the number of people with no native ancestors at all or to
anyone with any european ancestors. If they were referring to 1-10% of
their population being pure non-amerind than those numbers might work.
IIRC in NAN 1 it mentions that a number of the NAN countries discovered
that there just weren't enough people of native decent left when they
kicked out all the anglos so they opened up the requirements of claiming
native descent VERY widely. For example, if they started out using a
criteria of needing a full blooded native american within the past four
generations to determine who could claim native status (and therefore
citizenship) they may have expanded it to anyone with a full blooded native
american within the last eight generations. That plus the possibility of
relaxing the level of proof being demanded to verify the relation could
allow the NAN countries to greatly expand the number of people who were
considered to be "native". This could give give you "native" citizens
of
an NAN country ranging all the way from full-blooded in a given tribe to
being blue-eyed and blond-haired but "my
great-great-great-great-grandmother was a <insert tribe here>". Since both
meet the dictated requirements for being "of native descent" they would
both be considered "non-anglo" by that nation's bean-counters. Heck,
judging from the number of "american-mongrels" I have met who have at least
one native american ancestor somewhere in their family history, loosen the
requirements enough and almost anyone who's family has lived in north
america for more than a three or four generations might be able to claim
native descent.

-- Blair
------
Blair A. Monroe
Web Developer / Information Professional / Gamemaster
E-mail: bmonroe@******.fsu.edu
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bmonroe/
Message no. 10
From: Brian Wong <rook@*****.INFINEX.COM>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:20:43 -0800
> >I disagree. China suffered the warlords because of special historical
> >circumstances not because China has any special tendency to warlords. A
> >weak central government, justified purely by military power and no other
> >moral authority, choosing to govern the provinces through reliance on
>
> Right now there is a strong central government, justified purely through
> militray power and no moral authority, choosing to govern the provinces

No moral authority by western standards is not the same as no moral
authority. By confuscian standards they have more moral authority than
almost every other government in asia. And through decades of communist
propoganda they have built up a very strong patriotic fever which is
very much a moral/charismatic authority. China today rules more by moral
authority than possibly any other governments in the world save the Taliban,
Iran, and Isreal.

Moral authority does not mean western morality.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG Town Hall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html Super Hero Links
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 11
From: Brian Wong <rook@*****.INFINEX.COM>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:26:11 -0800
> also the very culture of China) with an iron fist. AFAIK chinese citizens'
> rights to bear children are still rationed out.
>
> IMHO that's a time-bomb waiting to go off.

Man countries dictate reproductive rights. Ireland outlaws
abortion and marraige. Pre-RvW USA outlawed abortion. Singapore runs
campaigns asking one race to have more children and another to cut back;
then switches it around ten years later to rebalance the population.

I don't see a time bomb here. If these policies where applied in
a culture used to making it's own choices I would see a timb bomb. But a
ban on abortion for many decades in the USA proved that it was only
a minor time bomb.
Through clever propoganda; China has the popular support of
most of it's people. There is more patriotism in China than in the USA by
a long shot.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG Town Hall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html Super Hero Links
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 12
From: Shaun Gilroy <shaung@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 12:58:36 -0500
At 09:26 AM 10/26/98 -0800, you wrote:
> Man countries dictate reproductive rights. Ireland outlaws
>abortion and marraige. Pre-RvW USA outlawed abortion. Singapore runs
>campaigns asking one race to have more children and another to cut back;
>then switches it around ten years later to rebalance the population.
>
> I don't see a time bomb here. If these policies where applied in
>a culture used to making it's own choices I would see a time bomb. But a
>ban on abortion for many decades in the USA proved that it was only
>a minor time bomb.
> Through clever propoganda; China has the popular support of
>most of it's people. There is more patriotism in China than in the USA by
>a long shot.

Okay, you have my agreement there. You seem to understand the situation
better than I, so I'll ask...

Is there any realistic threat of it falling apart due to a loss in
leadership? Most of my info is dated by a couple of years, but it appears
to me that the People's Government has been slowly loosing authority an
support in recent years.

I guess my time-bomb statement was referring to the belief that
repressionary regimes have a tendency to make people rebell. The current
political situation, as I see it, leaves a disorganized mess if, say, a
student rebellion/revolution were to overthrow it.

I can easily see a Warlord-style situation evolving out of such a coup. Do
you see such a situation as possible, or am I mis-informed at some level?

(>)noysh the spoonë bard
-> jack of all trades, master of none. <-
Message no. 13
From: Michael vanHulst <Schizi@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:19:32 EST
In a message dated 10/26/98 6:30:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU writes:

> I disagree. China suffered the warlords because of special historical
> circumstances not because China has any special tendency to warlords
My knowledge may be limited to Koei games, but what about the Bandit Kingdoms,
or Three Kingdoms (Cao Cao, etc.) or Genghis Khan, etc.
While these also may have been specific circumstances at the time, it also
could happen anytime. (Does it seem like governments don't last as long as
they used?, I figure the phenom would be even worse in 20__ what with corp-
extraterritoriality and such.)

BTW, wasn't Egypt the longest real dynasties over all anyway?
Message no. 14
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:26:00 EST
In a message dated 10/26/98 2:48:45 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
Ereskanti@***.COM writes:

> I just thought I'd pass along this little reminder concerning SR
> history/timeline(s). The primary timeline is a mirror image advanced one
> hundred years. Compare major events in the early twentieth century with
> early
> events of the 21st century. It has given me some clues as to other neat
> things to come.
>
> the 60's...hmmm...missile crisis in cuba........presidential assassinations
> ..... hmmm...
>

That would also include the Great Influenza Epidemic of the 1916-1917 time
frame ... WWI (Eurowars anyone ?!?) ... and so on ...

-Herc
------ The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 15
From: Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:34:25 +1100
At 10:01 26/10/98 -0500, Shaun Gilroy wrote:
>Are you familiar with the Maoist regime currently in power in China? It
>was decades ago that students were gunned down in Tiennenmen square for
>disagreeing with the People's Government (even though it was the Mao
>santioned method of doing so).

Yes, I watched the whole horrible episode over many days on TV with tears
in my eyes. So what? Nearly every country of the members of this list has
used military and paramilitary forces against its own citizens, innocent of
any crime but demonstrating. Usually students, of course and usually with
deaths. These episodes did not eliminate the legitimacy of the respective
governments in the eyes of the majority of each country's citizens. Same
with the Tiananmen Square massacre. It was brutal but in no way proves that
the government exists purely by military force. It just proves that they
are secure enough to massacre their own students on international TV; that
they're a totalitarian regime that has established its own legitimacy in
the eyes of its people.

>If the current government were to fall from power, there would be a large
>power vacum in China, as the People's Government rules (not only laws, but
>also the very culture of China) with an iron fist. AFAIK chinese citizens'
>rights to bear children are still rationed out.

Power vacuum. Yes indeed, that's what happens when governments fall. But
there is absolutely no reason for the warlords to arise in this situation.
Rather, I suspect the fall of the Chinese communist government would
produce a sequence of events very similar to the fall of the Soviet
government. Look how that proceeded.






Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.
Message no. 16
From: Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:16:16 +1100
At 09:58 26/10/98 -0500, Sommers wrote:
>Right now there is a strong central government, justified purely through
>militray power and no moral authority, choosing to govern the provinces

I strongly disagree here. The current government of China, through
everything I've seen and read, and through my own trip there, seems to have
legitimate power in the eyes of the Chinese people (good propaganda mostly
but that doesn't matter). It is not a government sustained through military
power. It has an army and is not afraid to use it but that is not the same
thing. So, because most of its citizens recognize its right to govern it
has "moral" authority. Certainly, I find the current Chinese government
brutal and repressive but they have moral authority in the political
meaning of the word.

>through a reliance on military and communist party power. Local governments
>are finding outside support through outside powers (Nike, Ford, etc) and

The provinces are not governed by generals, with delegated authority and
using their own armies, as virtual fiefdoms. That is what's required for
the warlord scenario to be reborn. The warlords do not mysteriously appear
up out of the earth like the dragons.

>The entire upper power structure is made up of people in their 70's at
>least who won't be around forever. They are vastly overpopulated. If the
>country gets caught in the Asian economies problems, there will be problems
>in the country in a big way.

Yep. There could be problems ahead but China will react to them like any
other country. Governments will come and go. Governments may rise and fall.
There may even be periods of anarchy or possibly even a civil war - that's
a possibility for any country. It's just that China is no more likely to
gain the warlords again than any other country.

>Maybe I could believe it if you said that China has had more time unified
>than any other country, but that would only be because they have had one of
>the longest histories than anyone else. There were just too many other
>times when the country was anything but. Chinese history is filled by
>strong emperors that have united China, only to have it fall back again into
>several smaller countries after a generation or two. The Warring States
>period is a prime example, along with what happened after Genghis Khan died
>and it was split up again.

Yes. They've had a very rich history. They've suffered invasions and civil
wars. But isn't the civilizations's longevity the proof of a tendency to
stability? What alternative is there to longevity but supposition? What
other country, in Shadowrun times, can look back over such an extensive
history and say that no matter how bad things got they always re-unified to
become one people again?

>Chinese peasnts in general have a history of excepting whatever government
>is above them and plowing right on in the fields. For most of them, it
>doesn't matter whether they turn in their taxes to Beijing or the local
>warlord. Either way he pays his taxes and has no say whatsoever about what
>happens with the money. So they accept it and go along with their lives.

That's the same for peasants everywhere and everywhen. The peasants of
Europe never cared which (usually foreign) king ruled them. They just got
on with there poor existence. Until this century, patriotism was usually
the past time of the nobility and the wealthy.






Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.
Message no. 17
From: Josh Munn <barnack@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:32:49 EST
>At 10:01 26/10/98 -0500, Shaun Gilroy wrote:
>>Are you familiar with the Maoist regime currently in power in China?
>>It was decades ago that students were gunned down in Tiennenmen
>>square for disagreeing with the People's Government (even though it
>>was the Mao santioned method of doing so).
>
>Yes, I watched the whole horrible episode over many days on TV with
>tears in my eyes. So what? Nearly every country of the members of >this
list has used military and paramilitary forces against its own
>citizens, innocent of any crime but demonstrating. Usually students,
>of course and usually with deaths. These episodes did not eliminate
>the legitimacy of the respective governments in the eyes of the
>majority of each country's citizens. Same with the Tiananmen Square
>massacre. It was brutal but in no way proves that the government
>exists purely by military force. It just proves that they
>are secure enough to massacre their own students on international TV;
>that they're a totalitarian regime that has established its own
>legitimacy in the eyes of its people.
>

And they could keep killing citizens and the Chinese people as a whole
would not revolt. Through out history Chinese have seen the rise and
fall of governments as the realm of the gods. Governments rule by
devine athority. If someone is governing they have the favor of the
gods, but if the government is overthrown they see it as the governing
losing the will of the gods and the new rulers as having it.

The only way I can see the only way I could see the Chinese government
falling is a power struggle in the existing government. The common folk
of china are not known to rebel very often.




".o' 'b^'""'b -'b
,'.'o' t. = -'b -'t.
; d o' ___ _.--.. 8 - 'b ='b
dooo8< .o:':__;o. ,;;o88%%8bb - = 'b ='b
|^88^88=. .,x88/::/ | \\'::::::d%%%%%88%88888/%x88888
:-88ˆ%%L8'%'|::|_>-<-||%;;%;8%%=;:::=%8;;\%%%%\8888
|ˆ 88%%|HHHH|::| >-< |||;%;;8%%=;:::=%8;;;%%%%+|]88
| 88-88%%LL.%.%b::Y_|_Y/%|;;;;'%8%%oo88%;o%.;;;;+|]88
Yx88o88^^'"'^^%8boooood..-\H_Hd%P%%88%P^%%^'\;;;/%%88
'"\^\ ~"""""' d%P """^"
; = '+' - P
'.'.b :<%%> . : - d' - P
.'.b '788 ,'- = d' =.'
''.b. :..- :' P
'q.>b '^^^:::::,'
""^^
Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open.



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 18
From: Shaun Gilroy <shaung@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:21:33 -0500
At 08:16 PM 10/28/98 +1100, you wrote:
>At 09:58 26/10/98 -0500, Sommers wrote:
>>Right now there is a strong central government, justified purely through
>>The entire upper power structure is made up of people in their 70's at
>>least who won't be around forever. They are vastly overpopulated. If the
>>country gets caught in the Asian economies problems, there will be=
problems
>>in the country in a big way.
>
>Yep. There could be problems ahead but China will react to them like any
>other country. Governments will come and go. Governments may rise and fall.
>There may even be periods of anarchy or possibly even a civil war - that's
>a possibility for any country. It's just that China is no more likely to
>gain the warlords again than any other country.

My point is, Chris, one man's country degraded into Warlords is another
man's 'civil war.'

The reason that the central government in China is currently un-contested
is because Chairman Mao's Generals are still running the scene. The people
view Chairman Mao's associates as almost having 'divine right' to office.

I agree, its quite possible that the government will pass off to the newer
communists without a hitch. But what if the time of civil war happens to
be the time of goblinization and return of magicians? Would that not throw
a bit of a wrench in the works, and change the standard dynamics a bit?

Step on a butterfly here ...

>Chris Maxfield

(>)noysh the spoonë bard
-> jack of all trades, master of none. <-
Message no. 19
From: Brian Wong <rook@*****.INFINEX.COM>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:34:19 -0800
> And they could keep killing citizens and the Chinese people as a whole
> would not revolt. Through out history Chinese have seen the rise and
> fall of governments as the realm of the gods. Governments rule by
> devine athority. If someone is governing they have the favor of the
> gods, but if the government is overthrown they see it as the governing
> losing the will of the gods and the new rulers as having it.

That's like saying that modern day French believe their government
rules by divine right. There's reasons both of these countries are no
longer monarchies.
Contrary to popular opinion in the west; asia is a living breathing
place with a social system different than what it had 500 years ago.

> The only way I can see the only way I could see the Chinese government
> falling is a power struggle in the existing government. The common folk
> of china are not known to rebel very often.

This I semi agree with. Chinese revolutions have traditionally
come from two sources:
Invasion.
Peasant uprising built up over several generations.

Technically, communist China is a result of the second sparked
as a reaction to the first.
Peasants became disillusioned after europeans started slicing up the
country and dictacting affairs to first the throne and later the Nationalists
(Now Taiwan). So they threw in with various factions and the strongest of
these became increasingly more organized and popular. Though often with a
little 'coersion'. Communist China was a popular reaction to a desire for a
strong, soveriegn China not under the grip of western powers. And it was
largly done at the local grassroots level.

As a region also China does have an intense desire to be one nation.
Look at all the fuss over Hong Kong and then Taiwan. The average Hong Kong'er
knew they were going to a worse system; but was proud that they would be
Chinese again. A sort of mixed feelings on the issue.
Taiwanese are a little more independant. Many of them say they are
glad to be on their own. But would gladly rejoin a China that governed under
their terms. China is near fanatic in it's desire to have them back. All this
even though both know they have drifted apart culturally very far.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG Town Hall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html Super Hero Links
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 20
From: Michael vanHulst <Schizi@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:48:44 EST
In a message dated 10/28/98 3:28:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU writes:

> Rather, I suspect the fall of the Chinese communist government would
> produce a sequence of events very similar to the fall of the Soviet
> government. Look how that proceeded.
>
So they might splinter into a bunch of small republics? <shrug>
Ignoring the crash of '29 and the Goblinization "thing"
When magic returned, suddenly (lets say .1 % of population) 1 out of every
1000 chinese is developing magical powers. Do you think they will like being
ruled from afar?
Awakened Manchuria is probably ruled by mages. The Warlords might be people
that are trying to resist the outside influnce of suddenly magical neighbors
(the Big Sur on a Big Scale?)
and don't forget dragons, Lung may have liked the idea of a fractured China
(sure you can call it a cop out, but if most Greats have resources of a level
of Dunkelzhan or Lofwyr, it is within their power to influnce even a large
nation like China)
Going back to a broader scope. Any projection into the future is chancy,
could people at the start of the cold war predicted the fall of the USSR
believably? Could people have predicted the Crash of 1929, in 1869? The
computer explosion has changed the world today, how much more would it in
2028?
To say that things would have stayed the same is the same as predicting how
they would change. To say that China would be the same as it is today, after
all the world changes, is too simplistic. FASA wanted to create a world based
on ours, and make it a little more fun. If they had left everything the same
as today, people would have been calling it boring, and wondering how the
nations could have stayed the same through all the changes.
I like playing in the SR world, I like the new nations and do not expect
to read an encylcopedia every time I read the history section of a new Target
book.
(Though of course I still wish they would come out with an SR globe, just
fore the fun of it :-)
Message no. 21
From: Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:52:05 +1100
At 11:48 28/10/98 EST, Michael vanHulst wrote:
<<< snip some interesting China scenarios>>>
>Going back to a broader scope. Any projection into the future is chancy,
>could people at the start of the cold war predicted the fall of the USSR
>believably? Could people have predicted the Crash of 1929, in 1869? The
>computer explosion has changed the world today, how much more would it in
>2028?

Sure. But I don't agree that this means anything is possible and nothing
needs to be justified.

> To say that things would have stayed the same is the same as predicting
how
>they would change. To say that China would be the same as it is today, after
>all the world changes, is too simplistic. FASA wanted to create a world based
>on ours, and make it a little more fun. If they had left everything the same
>as today, people would have been calling it boring, and wondering how the
>nations could have stayed the same through all the changes.

The trouble is that they haven't produced something new and interesting.
Mostly, it's old and repetitive - not cyberpunk but historical romances.
Protectors and warlords? They must have worked overtime to come up with
those.:-( I agree that the bizarre future history of Shadowrun should
produce strange, different and fun changes and places,and in many cases
they have succeeded. I like the megacorps, the NAN, the Tirs even but, slot
it, I wish they'd use as much imagination, originality and flair with the
rest of the world as they did with North America.

> I like playing in the SR world, I like the new nations and do not expect
>to read an encylcopedia every time I read the history section of a new Target
>book.

Bloody hell, no. Most definitely not. I also found Target: UCAS and
Smugglers Havens good source books. I don't think location books needs
larger history sections. I just think they need better written ones or, if
it's too hard to justify, better histories (which can be just as
interesting, if not more so, than the current copy-cat histories.).

> (Though of course I still wish they would come out with an SR globe, just
>fore the fun of it :-)

I could not agree more. ;-)





Chris Maxfield
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au>
------------------------------------------
Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics.
----------------------------------------
Canberra, Australia
Message no. 22
From: Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:26:44 +1100
At 09:21 28/10/98 -0500, Shaun Gilroy wrote:
>My point is, Chris, one man's country degraded into Warlords is another
>man's 'civil war.'

Sure. With that definition, I have no problems. It would be more accurately
called a civil war however, simply because the title Warlord carries so
much baggage with it. :-)

>Step on a butterfly here ...

And kill Dunkelzahn there...




Chris Maxfield
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au>
------------------------------------------
Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics.
----------------------------------------
Canberra, Australia
Message no. 23
From: Brian Wong <rook@*****.INFINEX.COM>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 07:10:22 -0800
> >My point is, Chris, one man's country degraded into Warlords is another
> >man's 'civil war.'
>
> Sure. With that definition, I have no problems. It would be more accurately
> called a civil war however, simply because the title Warlord carries so
> much baggage with it. :-)

Actually; this one I do see as possible. The idea of warlords is just
silly. It implies a stable region of petty dictators in my mind. However a
civil war which has a clear beginning and eventual resolution in a unified China
is something I could see happening in a worse case scenerio (and SR seems to be
about worst case scenerios).

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG Town Hall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html Super Hero Links
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 24
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 13:03:37 +0000
More about China at the bottom.

and thus did Brian Wong speak on 26 Oct 98 at 9:26:

> Man countries dictate reproductive rights. Ireland outlaws
> abortion and marraige.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't let that one slip by :). My wife and I were
married in Ireland, and I don't think we're being considered outlaws
right now :). I think you meant divorce?

You're wrong in both accounts anyway. Divorce is legal, and
technically abortion should be too. The problem is that the High
Court told the government three years ago to make legislation for it
and they've been dragging their feet ever since (strong pro-life
sentiments, despite a referendum with a majority for abortion laws).

And another point, reproductive rights in many countries aren't
limited, it's the right not to reproduce which you're talking about.
And mostly that is thanks to the influence of religion.
Almost all countries try to influence population growth by means of
child benefits, but few actually follow China's route (not that I
condemn them for choosing this way, judging people by Western morals
is not really appropriate in any case).

From another post:

> China today rules more by moral authority than possibly any other
> governments in the world save the Taliban, Iran, and Isreal.

Erhm, Taliban in Afghanistan, and the government in Israel have moral
authority in ruling their countries?
Reality check: The Taliban are the equivalent of the most successful
Warlord in Afghanistan. They managed to become stronger than most of
their opponents and prevent them from ganging up on them. So far.
There are still large areas where they have no control and where a
local warlord rules. Afghanistan was/is the prime example of a
warlord state where foreign influences try to tip the balance by
supplying parties heavily with weaponry, but where everyone usually
gangs up against the strongest opponent. They had a "stable" sort of
government before for a few years, and then it fell. It will be a
matter of time before we can actually say that the Taliban rule
Afghanistan, and they will rule it by force, no moral authority until
a long time has passed. Right now the country is ruled by local
military commanders who's rule is almost total.

Israel is a completely different matter, but also wrong as an
example. Just because state and religion aren't well divided in
Israel does it mean that the government has moral authority, not more
than in any other country with a constitution. If that was the case
there wouldn't be this continuous swapping between right and left
wing governments (both of them always needing support of a lot of
coalition partners). Israel is a state deeply divided right now.
There are groups of people living there that don't even acknowledge
the state, pay taxes, or serve in the army. Most of the country wants
peace at some cost, half of them want to give up some land, lots of
them still think the "Arab's" should move out, and others simply
don't know. If the people there thought they had any moral rights to
rule the "biblical" areas of Israel, then there would have been no
space for a peace agreement, simply because they still had to conquer
large parts of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. If you meant by moral right
that they think they have a right to live in that area I agree, but
it is not linked to the government (plus a Jewish nation in either
South America or Ouganda was considered when the founders discussed
where to move).

If you're looking for countries where the rulers have a moral
authority in your sense of the word (which is not the right one
BTW, any country's government where the majority of the people
support the right of that government to rule it has moral authority),
look at pre-China Tibet, or current day Vatican City or Bhutan.
You're confusing religious/divine authority with moral authority.

To the Warlords in China thread:

It is possible; heck, warlords are possible in almost any country
given certain conditions. You "just" need a total collapse of a
central government with strong, decentralized powers who cannot take
over power straight away (check out Bug City for an example :). To
counter some of your arguments:

> > Sure. With that definition, I have no problems. It would be more
> > accurately called a civil war however, simply because the title
> > Warlord carries so much baggage with it. :-)

> Actually; this one I do see as possible. The idea of
> warlords is just silly. It implies a stable region of petty
> dictators in my mind. However a civil war which has a clear
> beginning and eventual resolution in a unified China is something I
> could see happening in a worse case scenerio (and SR seems to be
> about worst case scenerios).

Wait a sec, you can accept a civil war, but no warlords? I agree that
a country ruled by only warlords is ridiculous, but I could see a
bunch of factions being warlords, ruling next to a region that's
controlled by a democracy, which is next to a true communist area.

Lets assume the following scenario:
Central government in China continues to slowly "Westernize" their
economy and to lesser extend give more rights to people. This will
promote a stratification of incomes creating classes, plus they need
"intellectuals" to run companies. Now remember your average
revolutionary's fight against those same "intellectuals". Right now
there must be lots of older people who don't recognize the direction
their government is taking as the one they supported in their youths.
They might not speak out loud about it, but they won't like those
nouveau riche's driving past their bikes with BMW's. On the other
hand you have a group (mostly in the cities) who did get a good
education and feel the need for more rights (you can only counter
that much education with propaganda). Then there is the army,
under paid, badly equipped (although it is getting somewhat better),
and as the economy continues to improve they will demand more
resources (question is will they get it).
You have these groups already in China right now, but continuation of
the current policies by the government will only polarize the
situation more.

The stage is set, now it's time to open the disaster menu: Crash of
2029; Worldwide economic collapse; particularly disastrous for
countries who are busy changing their economic system. And if by then
they already changed their system completely, all the better, more
disgruntled people around when it collapses (large groups are going
to be left behind economically just like in Russia right now).
The government cannot keep up it's payment to the various branches,
foreign investors pull out of the market, local investors pull their
capital out of companies and into savings (which could be gone too
thanks to the crash). huge unemployment all over China and goodbye
central power (no resources left to maintain the previous level of
control).
This will leave the way open for local rulers/groups to take more
power and for unhappy people to speak out and demand a return to a
China of the past (meaning communist rule, although there will
always be people demanding the Emperor's return). On the other hand,
more democratic groups can make a go at getting more rights and
freedom. Civil war looms unless the crisis is solved quickly. Let
assume that no one is around to rally a majority of the people/
people in power around, there will be a fight for power.
The argument that China wants to be whole only makes the chances of
war greater since there is no common ground for most of the people
any more.

Since the crash probably means that communications also have broken
down, this means that your local ruler doesn't know exactly what is
going on in the rest of the country and probably decide to take
matters into their own hands. Team up with the local general would be
the next logical move (if the local general isn't already the ruler
in question), and then consolidate your power in the area you
control. Which means suppressing any opposition (probably ruthlessly).
Whether they do it to preserve the country for a future new central
government, or just for their own gain doesn't really matter right
now. Chances are that most areas will be evenly controlled by "Return
to the Glorious Days of Communism" groups, "Go Forward to
Capitalism, Mercedes and Two Videos" groups and anything in between
(giving the "More Freedom under Enlightened Communism" group a fair
share).

We now basically have a civil war, all you need to do to
semi-stabilize it into a bunch of smaller states is make sure that no
one will gain the upper hand or will join up with the other groups.
Usually the "chop down the one who puts his head above the mowing
field" will take care of the first thing, and keeping shadowrunners
around, plus two greater dragons who have an interest in the area
should take care of the second bit. So no warlords only, but 30-50%
warlord ruled areas is possible.

Thanks if you remained awake till this point :)


Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie
Message no. 25
From: Rook <rook@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 13:34:31 -0800
> > Man countries dictate reproductive rights. Ireland outlaws
> > abortion and marraige.
>
> I'm sorry, but I couldn't let that one slip by :). My wife and I were
> married in Ireland, and I don't think we're being considered outlaws
> right now :). I think you meant divorce?
>

Opps. Yes. Divorce. :)

> >From another post:
>
> > China today rules more by moral authority than possibly any other
> > governments in the world save the Taliban, Iran, and Isreal.
>
> Erhm, Taliban in Afghanistan, and the government in Israel have moral
> authority in ruling their countries?

The Taliban justify's it's rule through Islamic law. They have imposed
several religious rules upon the areas they control.

> Israel is a completely different matter, but also wrong as an

Israel says it has a right to exist because the arab land it has stolen
belongs to the Jews by god's will.

> If you're looking for countries where the rulers have a moral
> authority in your sense of the word (which is not the right one
> BTW, any country's government where the majority of the people
> support the right of that government to rule it has moral authority),

Which is China, Isreal, and much of Iran and the Taliban.

> To the Warlords in China thread:
>
> > Actually; this one I do see as possible. The idea of
> > warlords is just silly. It implies a stable region of petty
> > dictators in my mind. However a civil war which has a clear
> > beginning and eventual resolution in a unified China is something I
> > could see happening in a worse case scenerio (and SR seems to be
> > about worst case scenerios).
>
> Wait a sec, you can accept a civil war, but no warlords? I agree that
> a country ruled by only warlords is ridiculous, but I could see a
> bunch of factions being warlords, ruling next to a region that's
> controlled by a democracy, which is next to a true communist area.

In a people who have at the core of their nature the idea that they are
one people and always will and always have been one people; any split is
going to be temporary and resolve itself as soon as it can.
Taiwan is an excellent example here. People on both sides of the divide
wish they could be one. They just can't agree on how to do it. I'd say
they'll reunify in the next century at the latest.
A split China is a temporary thing. And if it happens the various
factions will all feel they are the 'real China' and will bicker, war,
or negotiate until they find a set of terms under which they reunite.
Just as China and Taiwan continue to discuss what each side wants to see
the other do before they 'accept the other back into the fold'.
China would never idly accept the idea of being split though. It's a
disruption on the core of their psych and would be resolved as soon as
it could. The only thing that's kept the Taiwan issue stable so long is
western influence and help to the point that Taiwan can almost defend
itself; if not actually do so.

> You have these groups already in China right now, but continuation of
> the current policies by the government will only polarize the
> situation more.
>

There is less polarization in China today than there is in the USA.
They have VERY good propoganda boosted by a culturally backed sense of
extreme patriotism and a growing economy which is giving people more
luxuries. Backed by local level democracy (at the township level) and an
opening up to capatilism the average Chinese today is much happier than
they where 10 years ago.

> This will leave the way open for local rulers/groups to take more
> power and for unhappy people to speak out and demand a return to a
> China of the past (meaning communist rule, although there will
> always be people demanding the Emperor's return). On the other hand,
> more democratic groups can make a go at getting more rights and
> freedom. Civil war looms unless the crisis is solved quickly. Let
> assume that no one is around to rally a majority of the people/
> people in power around, there will be a fight for power.
> The argument that China wants to be whole only makes the chances of
> war greater since there is no common ground for most of the people
> any more.

Yes; a civil war. Groups will form and get larger and larger brockering
alliances and structuring themselves until one or two main groups are
left and these will either come to terms or war until a central
government is formed.
The Confucian system that China is based upon makes allowances for
tuburlance like this in the way it structures human relations. People
form groups and choose a charismatic leader; who then groups with other
such leaders and they in turn get a leader and the process follows
itself all the way up the chain. This is the method by which people in
China, Korea, and Japan all structure human relations. It's an extremely
stable system that leaves a very strong vertical chain of command. A
person in this system feels out of place if they have no leader and no
one to lead. They naturally seek out both. And collapsed social setups
repair themselves with amazing speed.
It's very hard to explain it to a westerner, in fact to even explain it
using a western language. The process is alien to the west. It leaves
little room for individualism. But it is very strong; at the root of all
socialization; and prevelent at all levels of society.
The hardest piece of the whole chain is the person at the very top.
This person (and even in a democracy like Korea the person is selected
more by his peers than by the people at large) is ussually an individual
of strong charisma who'se words inspire his followers but who is not a
direct leader in the western sense. Even Mao's followers did not do what
he said; they did what they felt he meant. Part of this sets up a
situation where this person becomes much more easy to replace than
either he or anyone else thinks. All you need is for him to go out of
favor with his direct group and for them to favor someone else.

Perhaps the best example of this system is a pyramid. knock of the top
level and there's no real problem. You'd have to knock out the base, one
level at a time...

> Since the crash probably means that communications also have broken
> down, this means that your local ruler doesn't know exactly what is
> going on in the rest of the country and probably decide to take
> matters into their own hands. Team up with the local general would be


No, they would look to a person among them to lead them, who would then
look to people from that level to lead, and would continue up until a
national leader was found. At the worst somewhere in the chain there'd
be a set of guys who couldn't pick a leader for their group and they'd
go to war until one emerged as the strongest.
A thing that lasts only as long as a war might take. Which could be
long; but it would not be a stable period. It would be a warring period.
They need a leader. The rules of their social system don't teach them
what to do without one.

> We now basically have a civil war, all you need to do to
> semi-stabilize it into a bunch of smaller states is make sure that no

Agreed. But it would never stabalize unless an outside military divided
up the factions and prevented them from resolving it.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG TownHall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site
Message no. 26
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: Re: Suspension of Disbelief
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 17:50:42 +0000
and thus did Rook speak on 31 Oct 98 at 13:34:

> > Erhm, Taliban in Afghanistan, and the government in Israel have moral
> > authority in ruling their countries?
>
> The Taliban justify's it's rule through Islamic law. They have imposed
> several religious rules upon the areas they control.
>
> > Israel is a completely different matter, but also wrong as an
>
> Israel says it has a right to exist because the arab land it has stolen
> belongs to the Jews by god's will.

You're mixing up two things: The moral right /authority of a
government to rule and the moral right of a country to exists. The
first thing is according to my sociology books only the case when
the majority of the people in that country support that government's
right to rule. The second case is a highly dubious case, some
country's existence won't be questioned by anyone, but in the
case of Israel for example there are a lot of people who do not
think that it has the moral right to exist.
Imposing religious laws on the people doesn't give the government
moral authority. If the majority of the people in those countries
agree with those laws, then it has a moral authority to impose those
laws. In the case of Afghanistan I sincerely doubt that.

> > If you're looking for countries where the rulers have a moral
> > authority in your sense of the word (which is not the right one
> > BTW, any country's government where the majority of the people
> > support the right of that government to rule it has moral authority),
>
> Which is China, Isreal, and much of Iran and the Taliban.

Well I didn't question China as a country where the people support
the government, but right now the Israeli government does not rule
any more with the support of a majority of the people in that country,
the problems with the peace process plus various coalition problems
made the majority lose confidence in their government right now. It
might regain it later, but it's very often an almost 50-50 approval
rate throughout the history.
Again the Taliban rule by force, once someone can show that the
majority of the people support them (hardly possible), then they rule
with moral authority, not under any other circumstances.

> In a people who have at the core of their nature the idea that they are
> one people and always will and always have been one people; any split is
> going to be temporary and resolve itself as soon as it can.
> Taiwan is an excellent example here. People on both sides of the divide
> wish they could be one. They just can't agree on how to do it. I'd say
> they'll reunify in the next century at the latest.

Well be that as it may be, but right now Taiwan is going to celebrate
it's 50th birthday next year. Fifty years might not be long, but it
does make you wonder. If you put the break up of China around the
crash of '29, a split off part like Taiwan would still be independent
in '79. So in current SR-time multiple mini-nations that strife to
become one, but all strife in a different way to do that is possible
(with some heavy outside help/hinder of course).

> A split China is a temporary thing. And if it happens the various
> factions will all feel they are the 'real China' and will bicker, war,
> or negotiate until they find a set of terms under which they reunite.
> Just as China and Taiwan continue to discuss what each side wants to see
> the other do before they 'accept the other back into the fold'.

Nations are temporary things, it's the tendency of the human race to
want chance after a while, so what you say above actually supports my
theory about a split up China. Look at the history of China, it has
known various periods of disintegration, and conquered and lost large
areas. The western part was only conquered in 1759, only to become
independent again for 20 odd years shortly afterwards. China once
ruled over Vietnam, Nepal, parts of Khazachstan and Ouzbekistan,
etc. etc. They even controlled the Russian Amour area (containing
Wladiwostok) for 200 years. The empire lost and gained areas, and
while the heart land might have this urge to stay one country, the
borders certainly didn't feel this urge, and neither did that stop
the heart land falling apart into various nations for longer periods
of time.

> China would never idly accept the idea of being split though. It's a
> disruption on the core of their psych and would be resolved as soon as
> it could. The only thing that's kept the Taiwan issue stable so long is
> western influence and help to the point that Taiwan can almost defend
> itself; if not actually do so.

Well yes, still no good arguments not to accept the current SR
situation. Taiwan was heavily supported by the US, and it remained
independent. So who would benefit by a split up China around 2050?
Basically everyone around them who could profit from their weakness.
Japan comes to mind, certainly not a stranger in Chinese politics I
can see them actively supporting factions (and yes I know the Chinese
don't like the Japanse, but that didn't stop them before from
accepting their help). Actually I think that all the powerful
Corporations would benefit by keeping China divided on the premises
that it is easier to force smaller and weaker economies into
accepting the Corporation's demands than a huge state. So what would
happen to China if the big Corps start funding/supporting factions
hoping to be the one that manages to create a country on the basis of
Aztlan for themselves. None of the other Corporations can allow that
to happen, controlling China would give any given Corp an advantage
that puts it way beyond the competition...

(Hmmm.. makes one wonder about the situation in 2060... all the big
nations of yore are divided and weak... interesting thought).

> There is less polarization in China today than there is in the USA.
> They have VERY good propoganda boosted by a culturally backed sense of
> extreme patriotism and a growing economy which is giving people more
> luxuries. Backed by local level democracy (at the township level) and an
> opening up to capatilism the average Chinese today is much happier than
> they where 10 years ago.

Oh, yes, I wasn't denying that they're not on the right way right
now, and personally I think that the path they follow is the way to
keep it under control, unlike in Russia happens. but it's a very
narrow path and once you kick the economy into ruins it might well
turn into a mess. Nothing makes people more rebellious than a
collapsing economy.

> Yes; a civil war. Groups will form and get larger and larger brockering
> alliances and structuring themselves until one or two main groups are
> left and these will either come to terms or war until a central
> government is formed.

That would be the situation if there would be no influence. Alas
these kind of conflicts nowadays cannot be resolved without outsiders
getting into the picture. And they can keep a conflict going on for a
long time. Look at the Thirty Year war in Germany, without countries
actively trying to keep the war going it would have been maybe a five
year war without much lasting damage. As it was it lasted 30 years,
devastated Germany and killed 1/3 of it's population. It
started out as a religious war, but went on mostly because
neighbouring states saw it as a perfect opportunity to weaken
an already damaged opponent. Vietnam is a good modern example.

> The Confucian system that China is based upon makes allowances for
> tuburlance like this in the way it structures human relations. People
> form groups and choose a charismatic leader; who then groups with other
> such leaders and they in turn get a leader and the process follows
> itself all the way up the chain. This is the method by which people in
> China, Korea, and Japan all structure human relations. It's an extremely
> stable system that leaves a very strong vertical chain of command.
[snip]
> The hardest piece of the whole chain is the person at the very top.
> This person (and even in a democracy like Korea the person is selected
> more by his peers than by the people at large) is ussually an individual
> of strong charisma who'se words inspire his followers but who is not a
> direct leader in the western sense. Even Mao's followers did not do what
> he said; they did what they felt he meant. Part of this sets up a
> situation where this person becomes much more easy to replace than
> either he or anyone else thinks. All you need is for him to go out of
> favor with his direct group and for them to favor someone else.
[snip]

Thanks for the explanation, I happened to know about it, but it
might be helpful in general to understand differences in cultures.
You'll be suprised to know that most European societies used to work
in this way too (except that there was less possibility for vertical
mobility, and it seems that loyalty lay differently). Problem I have
with it is that it is hopelessly optimistic. Take out the leader and
you end up with a group that needs to agree upon a new leader. Just
like everywhere else that's going to be either a question of smart
political manoeuvring, compromising, back stabbing, etc. And when all
fails war. If this social system also applies on Japanse society then
it's history should explain my point.
Plus as a side effect to international relations and
professionalizing government, politicians nowadays almost form their
own sub-culture and society with their own rules and behaviour.

> No, they would look to a person among them to lead them, who would then
> look to people from that level to lead, and would continue up until a
> national leader was found. At the worst somewhere in the chain there'd
> be a set of guys who couldn't pick a leader for their group and they'd
> go to war until one emerged as the strongest.

Two "buts".
One: What about when a local leader cannot find a leader, or
considers himself a better leader (IIRC Mao's rise to leadership
wasn't exactly bloodless).
Two: this is assuming that everyone will look for a leader, which I
doubt, Chinese culture or not. It's assuming a bit too much passive
behaviour on the part of the Chinese. I do believe that the majority
is quite happy following someone (like in western societies), but
even if only one in 100,000 Chinese suffers from ambition, there will
be quite a few contenders for the throne who will not look for a
leader but try to become the leader.

> A thing that lasts only as long as a war might take. Which could be
> long; but it would not be a stable period. It would be a warring period.
> They need a leader. The rules of their social system don't teach them
> what to do without one.

Okay, so you accept the fact that there might be warring states after
the Chinese government collapses, and that it might take some time to
resolve that war. So what is the problem with the SR situation,
except for the word Warlord. No matter what you name them there will
be multiple leaders fighting for control. Whether you call them
leaders or Warlords technically it doesn't matter too much.
Effectively we have a bunch of leaders who make alliances to squash
stronger enemies and break them when their former ally becomes to
strong. A very rapidly changing situation, where last weeks ruler,
might be this weeks dog food or the next Mao (if he doesn't get
killed the week after).

> Agreed. But it would never stabalize unless an outside military divided
> up the factions and prevented them from resolving it.

They don't need to actively participate, although it would help a
lot. If outside forces support factions in such a way that the
end result is more polarization between them, then those forces have
done their job.

Martin,

"One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Hah, Oswald was a
fag" - Michael McManus, the Usual Suspects

Karina & Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Suspension of Disbelief, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.