Giving multiculturalism a bad name

[erudito]

So, the Gillard Government, starting with the PM herself, is already distancing itself from a taxpayer-funded study which claimed that celebrating the centenary of ANZAC could be divisive. This shows that the Gillard Government is not suicidally stupid

Comments

[quatrefoil]

As an Anglo-Celtic Australian, I deplore the celebration of ANZAC Day. Not its quiet rememberance with regret, but the nationalistic, jingoistic celebration it became under the Howard era at a time not co-incidentally when the last veterans of the Gallipoli campaign no longer had a voice to protest (and protest they did). I loathe the glorification of war in all its forms, and I fail to see that we should be spending any more money to 'celebrate' such an anniversary. (Note, I'm not objecting to the kind of dignified commemoration that was held for the 75th anniversary, though I think it's kind of pointless when there's no longer anyone who remembers it

[jordan179]

I wasn't aware that these were your only two choices. Also, I really don't care whether you read Illusion, Revolution, or Charlie the Choo-Choo Discovers Forbidden Love, Stephen King's little-known venture into gay robot demon porn.

[yamamanama]

Then I'll rephrase it it in a way you can understand it: Why should I read Revolution at all?

[jordan179]

I didn't say that you should read Revolution. I don't care whether or not you read revolution. Mary probably doesn't either.

[yamamanama]

I saw the blurb on the website, and I guess I was wrong, this isn't a ripoff of Illusion at all. No, it reeks of a different filth.

Mary C. begins by sharing with us her story, tentatively titled Revolution, a well-plotted tale following the children who must now suffer the world made unintentionally by their parents' wish for equality between mundane and magic user.
Emphasis mine. I smell allegory.

[jordan179]

Not even sure what you're getting at, and since neither of us have read the story, I doubt that you are all that sure of what you're getting at either.

[yamamanama]

What I'm getting it is that either Drow (who wrote the description) or Oronoda (who wrote the story) believes that equality between cultures, between peoples, between religions is a bad thing.

Wait a minute, first you say you read Oronoda's story, and now you're saying you didn't?

[jordan179]

From what I understand, the point of the story is that revolutions instutited for noble purposes such as equality under the law can get out of hand and create greater evils than those they fought. Which, looking at the history of the French, Russian, Chinese, and many other revolutions, is manifestly true.

[yamamanama]

OK, then. Gee, that whole French revolution with the nobility having magic and things getting awfully out of hand sounds awfully familiar.

I hardly think that any of those revolutions were actually worse than what they fought against, but I digress. Maybe as bad, but not worse.

[jordan179]

Gee, that whole French revolution with the nobility having magic and things getting awfully out of hand sounds awfully familiar.

That is the point of conceptual similarity -- fantasy French Revolution which makes matters worse, just as did the REAL French Revolution.

I hardly think that any of those revolutions were actually worse than what they fought against, ...

The French, Russian and Chinese Revolutions were all similar in that they were revolutions against flawed semi-liberal regimes (in the case of the French and Russian, parliamentary monarchies, in the case of the Chinese, a representative republic which had never been able to control its own generals) (*). All three almost immediately became totalitarian dictatorships which proceeded to murder large numbers of their own people, far in excess of any brutalities committed by the old regimes -- tens to hundreds of thousands in the case of France, tens of millions in the case of Russia, and possibly up to a hundred million in the case of China. And all three new regimes

[jordan179]

I read some of the story. Less than a chapter so far. But it was enough to make it obvious that the only similarity to Illusion was the basic concept of a revolution against a magocracy.

[yamamanama]

Ok, then, whose perspective is it from? Why do they rebel against the magocracy?

[jordan179]

The first chapter is from the perspective of the rebels, who rebel against the magocracy because it is genetically-exclusive and refuses to let even talented non-aristocrats learn magic. I'm not sure about the later chapters.

[yamamanama]

They're capable of learning magic but unable to because it's a closed profession or they can't learn it because it's not in their DNA?

I feel like the perspective is going to change, given the synopsis.

[jordan179]

They're capable of learning magic but unable to because it's a closed profession or they can't learn it because it's not in their DNA?

Not sure which, and it obviously could be a little bit of both -- the magocracy might be originally descended from mages who were genetically better at it, but over time the talent would have diffused more through the population for the obvious reasons.

[oronoda]

Basically, everyone can use magic if it is through scrolls which can only be made by mages. Mages are people with inherent magical ability. In their youth, it is very moldable but difficult to control if they use it. When they learn to control it, it is through one school. When they reach adulthood, they can only really cast magic from that one school. To cast magic from another school, you need to purchase scrolls.

Mundanes were looked down on and pitied but also had second class status because they have no inherent abilities. They could use the scrolls but the government has forbid it to keep them at their second class status. This is why the mundanes were able to invest more time into technology which is now on par with magic, something many mages feel threatened by.