Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Samira Kernher]

The Empire was at peace for a century, so kameiras would have been used for various kinds of homefront duties including internal security. Not saying that they would be assigned to guard slave quarters, you don't really need a military unit for that, though I do expect that there would be local non-kameira slave police working under/alongside Amarrian police. I'd expect kameiras (and other military) would only be called in if a situation got really out of hand.

[Lyn Farel]

Especially Kameiras... It's like saying that you call the Gurkas, the SAS, or the Navy Seals (or whatever fits your nation military definition of assault/commando/elite forces) to guard slave pens...

I mean, maybe, just maybe, in a general slave riot in the middle of a global uprising but still...

[Nicoletta Mithra]

(...)On top of that, what do we have exactly in terms of laws and framework according to PF ?

That's the important question, I think.

Also: I don't see how the Amarr could possibly be an 'apartheid policy state like North Korea' - Apartheid is a system of racial segregation: North Korea is ethnically homogenous. A "kind of apartheid Police state, not unlike modern day North Korea" sounds to me like a blatantly self-contradicting conception.
It may sound 'nice' to say 'apartheit Police state, like North Korea': But that's that, imho. It works with a lot of preconceptions that are based on a fuzzy understanding of the terms involved. It's not really the kind of 'analysis' that helps to shed light on the structure of the Amarr society, because it's starts out with occluding the meaning of terms.

Anyhow, whatever the Kameira are, they are certainly not a 'loyal slave Police force'. Also, even though the Empire has seen some 'peace' the last century, that is with it's big neighbours, there have been documented conflicts, e.g. with the Blood Raiders etc. There has certainly been enough conflict not to use the kameira for policing. Also, the Empire has access to other elite troops (e.g. the boarding and counter-boarding troops) which are much more suited to be used at the homefront than the Kameiras, who are obviously less adept at handling social issues arising naturally on the homefront.

[Anyanka Funk]

(...)On top of that, what do we have exactly in terms of laws and framework according to PF ?

That's the important question, I think.

IRL laws are chaotic now. I can't even imagine how hypocritical and stringent the laws would be in the empire or anywhere in new eden. It would be like the scriptures, there are thousands of them icly yet we only actually know of a handful of them.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I don't know: Where I live laws are not a chaotic mess, mostly. maybe that's because we don't have a common law system.

That said: I still think it's the imporatant question here. Basing our understanding on the laws and framework according to PF is certainly still better than basing it on speculation and PF anecdotal stories.

[Gaven Lok ri]

Jikahr is spot on (except for the Kameira guard duty quibble, but that is minor)

The reason I brought up roman freedmen is that that part of the Roman slave model is almost certainly at work and also isn't anywhere near as well known as the colonial model. But that doesn't mean the *whole* Roman slave model is there.

Its also notable that if you study the RL history of slavery there isn't actually as much of a disconnect between classical and colonial slavery as commonly thought. The idea that the medieval world was a relatively slaveless society is no longer considered true, so there is no longer a hard break between the classical and colonial when it comes to western slave holding. I don't think anyone has quite gotten to what exactly this means for the origins of colonial slavery yet, though.

Amarr is likely to be similar. It will have different ideas of what slavery means in different eras. It certainly has an idea of freedpeople, and it also certainly has an idea of racial slavery. The fact that the two aren't quite compatible with each other actually makes Amarr a more realistic fake society.

[Jikahr]

Well, the reason that I would assume that the Kameria would be used as a kind of local 'Police force' is because that is what the Persian slave soldiers, such as the Janisseries, were technically like.

Like the Persian Empire, Amarr is a patchwork empire with powerful competing oligarchic families. The Imperial Guard cannot be trusted if they are taken from the territories of the Holder families. The only way to ensure their loyalty is to ensure they have allegiance to NO family. So local Police is an incorrect comparison. I would say they would be more like the (Roman) Praetorian Guard, which were more like the Emperor's own personal troops. I consider the Praetorians as being the closest thing Rome had to a Police force, but I suppose that is like comparing a kitten to a Tiger.

It is correct that North Korea is not an apartheid state, since it is racially homogenous. However, I don't think that race is an essential component of Apartheid. Perhaps Cuba would be a better example?

Communist (Stalinist) Cuba is racially diverse, and apparently 'no longer racist', but it is 'apartheid' in the sense that the best food, areas, etc. are reserved exclusively for the tourists only. The citizens are kept in line with a strong and ever present Police force, secret Police, surveillance, and a 'pre-crime' criminal charge of 'social dangerousness'. Housing in Cuba is free of charge, but the Police can enter your home at any time without a warrant since technically, everything in the country belongs to the Government.

This is the way I picture Amarrian society. On one side of the (metaphorical) fence, you have the free Amarrian citizens who have better conditions, food, privileges, etc. On the other side of the fence, the slave population are kept under tight control with visible deterrents and harsh(er) penalties.

I think the way that Amarrian slaves would live and behave as I would think of how the citizens of Cuba or North Korea live and behave. They are certainly given the 'mushroom treatment', which means they are kept ignorant but they are most certainly not 'stupid'. Many of the slaves
would be content to live within the system, having known nothing else. Sheep and cattle do not resist or try to escape, where would they go?

Note that some North Korean defectors who run away to South Korea eventually return to the land of torture and prison camps, simply because they are ill equipped to live in the strange, new world of freedom. Talking to North Koreans can be strange, because sometimes they sound like 'normal' people, and then sometimes they start spouting propaganda like pre-programmed robots spouting Government doctrine.

Despite this, the Amarrian slaves (North Koreans, Cubans) have enough creativity and courage to dissent in small cell groups and rebel in small, even symbolic ways right beneath the noses of their oppressors. They probably have a thriving black market economy as well, selling stuff they steal at work. Cell phones are a major way for North Koreans (as well as Cubans) to access information on the otherwise forbidden and inaccessible internet. I can imagine Minmatar slaves doing the same sort of thing, such as accessing 'Radio Free Matari' broadcasts illegally.

One reason that Amarrian society reminds me of North Korea is their strange practice of paying respects to six story statues of their former and current leader. This has led to some political analysts saying that North Korea is no longer a Stalinist state, but more like Imperial Fascist Japan with it's worship of a God Emperor.

Perhaps if you combined the hundred year period of Japanese conquest, where the Koreans were very definitely a different ethnic group who were undoubtedly treated by their Japanese conquerors as a slave underclass, and mixed in the 'modern day' North Korean practices of a security and surveillance state, labor camps, torture, complete media and information control, and institutional rituals such as paying respects to giant statues of leader (i.e. God Emperor), it might be a better comparison to the day to day life of an Amarrian slave.

The problem with one ethnicity visibly oppressing another is that you will always have resentment, tension and unrest. This is a problem regardless of the level of technology and security forces you have, since they can only ever be a temporary advantage. The way to counter this in a racially diverse society might be to 'divide and conquer', actively encouraging the ethnic groups of slaves to actively compete against and hate each other.

Brutor slaves might hate the Amarr, but hate the Vherikor slaves even more and vice versa. This animosity between the various Minmatar tribes already existed, and is perhaps the main reason why the Amarr enslaved them so easily. This might also be why the Minmatar gradually came to accept the yolk of slavery, since it represented a kind of peace and stability.

Likewise, the Amarr commoners would likely despise the nationalities of the slaves that had been granted freedom. The commoners are not much better off than the slaves financially speaking, and a freed (especially skilled) slave would certainly represent the threat of wage competition for the scant available jobs. This is also part of the control mechanism. The commoners must also be kept in line, and they are also the first line of defense against a slave uprising.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Apartheid (countable and uncountable, plural apartheids)

• (historical) The discriminatory policy of racial separation used by South Africa from 1948 to 1990.
• (by extension) Any similar policy of racial separation/segregation and discrimination.
• (by extension) A policy or situation of segregation based on some specified attribute.

In the last meaning (which is one by analogy), there is usually specified under which kind of grounds, instead of racial ones, the segregation takes place. Like 'sexual apartheid' or 'religious apartheid'. I don't think that reserving the best food for tourists is really a ground on which to call a state an 'apartheid state', else every nation with a free market economy would be an 'apartheid state', because only the rich people can afford the best food. Also, I don't think that just the distribution of food is the important factor here: Much more important is whether people of the different groups are allowed to interact with one another (cuban citizens are allowed to interact with tourists) and whether certain groups have curtailed rights and especially their rights to associate and form movements, which champion their political interests.  <,<

(Cuba might be a police state, but I think there are no valid reasons to call it an 'apartheid state'. The two are very much different things, though it might be much easier to realize the latter through the former.)

If there is something like an apartheid (by extension!) system in Amarr, then it is a 'class apartheid'. This, though, is kind of a pleonasm, as class already implies some amount of segregation between the classes. Now, it gets entirely tautological, if one would suggest 'state-of-freedom apartheid'. This would kind of amount to saying that Amarr segregate/discriminate people on grounds of segregating/discriminating them.

Also, a classical apartheid system would be opposed to any process that would injure the apart-hood of races. Thus, it would be opposed to release of slaves (which would be held for racial grounds) as freedmen and similarly to enslaveing Amarr for crimes: Both of which evidently happens in Amarr.

This is the way I picture Amarrian society. On one side of the (metaphorical) fence, you have the free Amarrian citizens who have better conditions, food, privileges, etc. On the other side of the fence, the slave population are kept under tight control with visible deterrents and harsh(er) penalties.

That can hardly be true, as PF explicitly states that some free people in the Empire live in worse conditions than slaves! It's explicitly stated that there are slaves which have positions of power and social acumen, not unlike the ministeriales already pointed at by Lou.

Also, that is hardly the fence in Amarrian society, bifurcating it into the (lucky) free citizens and the (unlucky) slaves. There are many such fences in Amarr society and many of arguably similar, if not more importance, like the most prominently the division between nobility and non-nobility, but also divisions between royal families and non-royal families, titled and non-titled nobility, rich and poor (commoners as well as nobility)...

As to:

Many of the slaves would be content to live within the system, having known nothing else. Sheep and cattle do not resist or try to escape, where would they go?

It#s not like that isn't true of most people, slaves or none. In general, most people rather choose to stay where they are, because they are familiar with their sourroundings. In fact, that is true for most people I know, be it here in the EU or in the US. There are loads of people who decide to emigrate, just to come back after a few years or so, having failed to build a new existence.

I highly doubt, therefore, that the 'returner effect' is something one can blame on a certain political system so simply. It might play a role, sure, but it's not really the deciding factor here.

Also, the Minmater are actually the group under Amarr slavery that did and does least accept it.

(Btw. did you notice that Stalinist states had those gigantic Stalin statues? Or that the US has those gigantic statues of their 'founding fathers'? - Lincoln Monument, Mount Rushmore?)

[Jikahr]

I will concede the rest of the argument to you. The Amarrian Empire is not an apartheid state.

Still, I myself picture racial segregation in the Amarrian Empire, such as existed in the southern United States before the civil rights movement. Perhaps this is because when I joined, the Amarrians were the religious fanatic 'white folks', and the Minmatar were the brown skinned slaves and former slaves. I can certainly accept that free Minmatar (such as the Ammatar) can be high ranking, and pure Amarr (why call them pure?) can be enslaved.

However...

(Btw. did you notice that Stalinist states had those gigantic Stalin statues? Or that the US has those gigantic statues of their 'founding fathers'? - Lincoln Monument, Mount Rushmore?)

Yes, but I think there is a difference when it comes to the mandatory semi-religious ritual that North Koreans perform before the statues of their leaders which exist in each and every city. The Stalinists did not worship at the base of those statues, Americans do not worship the Lincoln Monument or Mount Rushmore. 'Big butter Jesus' maybe, but Mount Rushmore, no.

When I say worship, I do mean worship.

Also, I did ask that the example not be taken so literally. The example I gave was a kind of thought experiment combination of Imperial Japan, which really did have a divine Emperor who was worshipped as a living God, and the practice North Koreans have of standing before the statues of their leaders at certain times every day to pay devotion and respect.

Imperial Japan = Theocratic state

North Korea = Police state.

Theocratic Police state = Amarrian Empire

If that example of the way that I, personally conceive of the Amarrian Empire does not work for you, personally, perhaps I could also use the example of how the Ancient Romans. The Romans actually believed their Emperor was a living God, built statues of him, and worshiped him using those statues as a shrine.

Ancient Rome = Amarr works for most people.  Curatores Veritatis Alliance, Praetorian Guard and so on. I just can't imagine Amarrians wearing togas.

[Jikahr]

I will concede the rest of the argument to you. The Amarrian Empire is not an apartheid state.

Still, I myself picture racial segregation in the Amarrian Empire, such as existed in the southern United States before the civil rights movement. Perhaps this is because when I joined, the Amarrians were the religious fanatic 'white folks', and the Minmatar were the brown skinned slaves and former slaves. I can certainly accept that free Minmatar (such as the Ammatar) can be high ranking, and pure Amarr (why call them pure?) can be enslaved.

However...

(Btw. did you notice that Stalinist states had those gigantic Stalin statues? Or that the US has those gigantic statues of their 'founding fathers'? - Lincoln Monument, Mount Rushmore?)

Yes, but I think there is a difference when it comes to the mandatory semi-religious ritual that North Koreans perform before the statues of their leaders which exist in each and every city as though they were shrines. The Stalinists did not worship at the base of those statues, Americans do not worship the Lincoln Monument or Mount Rushmore. 'Big butter Jesus' maybe, but Mount Rushmore, no.

When I say worship, I do mean worship.

Also, I did ask that the example not be taken so literally. The example I gave was a kind of thought experiment combination of Imperial Japan, which really did have a divine Emperor who really was worshiped as a living God, and the practice North Koreans have of standing before the statues of their leaders at certain times every day to pay devotion and respect.

Imperial Japan = Theocratic state

North Korea = Police state.

Theocratic state + Police state = Amarrian Empire

If that example of the way that I, personally conceive of the Amarrian Empire does not work for you, personally, perhaps I could also use the example of how the Ancient Romans. The Romans actually believed their Emperor was a living God, built statues of him, and actively worshiped him using those statues as a shrine.

Ancient Rome = Amarr works for most people.  Curatores Veritatis Alliance, Praetorian Guard and so on. I just can't imagine Amarrians speaking in Latin and wearing togas.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Now... I concede there are some analogies to be found, but... the Amarr Emperor is certainly not worshipped as God. <,< The last one who tried that got removed.

[Lyn Farel]

I don t think imperial japan could be considered a theocratic state. While you are of course right that the emperor was indeed considered as a divine being the emperor, be it under the shogunate or imperial japan, had very little rights and was actually deemed too divine and sacred to speak to mortals and the people, just his close entourage... The country was never ruled by priests or any clergy but by nobles under the shogunate and the imperial admninistration after Meiji, or just the parliament...

In fact japan was a shogunate (oligarchic despotism), a liberal democracy, an imperial fascist state, and again a democracy, but never a theocratic state. There are ofc a lot of analogies that can be made between the caste system, the status of the emperor, etc...

[Jikahr]

Now... I concede there are some analogies to be found, but... the Amarr Emperor is certainly not worshipped as God. <,< The last one who tried that got removed.

You are referring to Emperor Zaragram? Perhaps I should not say that the Emperor/ Empress is actually a God, but rather that she is the earthly representative/ mouthpiece of God. There seems to be a slight difference, a line which sometimes gets blurred. Caligula and Commoditus believed they really were Gods, acting on a whim and claiming the power of the Priesthood for themselves. Naturally, the priests resented this, so out they went. Claudius and Augustus understood the unwritten rules about assuming divinity.

According to the Divine right of Kings, ALL monarchs rule by the will of the divine. They are Royalty because 'God said so'. I'm not sure we could call Medieval Europe a theocracy though.

According to this document, China and Japan could both be considered as theocratic states at some point in their (modern) history. 

http://politicalsystems.com/theocracy.html

[Lyn Farel]

Hm yes you are right that it seems that the original meaning is like what you say, and thus that empire could indeed be considered as such...

However, not by XIXth century definitions which focus on the power to the religious instition.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Theocracy in this very wide sense isn't a simple binary state. Nor does falling under the wide 'theocracy' definition preclude something to fall under the definition for other political systems. So, something might fall under the definition of 'theocracy' in some (wide) sense, but yet be much better characterised by some other description.

In some sense, the UK is a 'theocracy', as the nominal head of state - the Queen - is also the 'Supreme Govenor' of the Anglican church and thus a representative of God on earth. Also, the 'Lords Spiritual' (consisting of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and 24 diocesan bishops) have seats in the House of Lords.

Similarly, in some sense the US is a 'ceremonial theocracy', as it's 'ceremonial deism' shows: "One nation under God" it is nowadays in the pledge and "In God We Trust"  as the official motto of the United States.

All that doesn't mean, ofc., that describing the government of the UK or the US as 'theocratic' really does justice to the realities.

In the modern understanding of 'theocracy' the meaning is therefore, usually, narrowed down to coincide with 'ecclesiocracy' - the form of government in which clergy have official recognition as the civil ruler and official policy is either governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.

But lets look at the non european examples: Japan, for a long period of time the Tenno was thought to be in direct communication with the gods and a god himself, That certainly being a theocratic feature. But during the shogunate period from 1192 to 1867, the de-facto ruler was the Shogun. So, for that time the political system of Japan is better described as a feudal military dictatorship. With the Meiji-restauration the government of Japan took a turn, placing power in the hands of the Emperor: But still this new system is better described as a form of constitutional monarchy based on the Prusso-German model, than a theocracy or ecclesiocracy, even though the Emperor was certainly still thought of as a kami.

Similarly, the 'mandate of heaven' was something that existed in imperial China - just like the idea of divine right of kings in Europe - but didn't really shape the Chinese Empire(s) as much as their elaborate system of ministerial bureaucracy.

The point is: Even while certain historical states fit the definition for being a 'theocracy', we shouldn't make the mistake to assume that this is their first and foremost defining character in regard to their system of government - and much less that they fit the stricter definition, in which 'theocracy' means 'ecclesiocracy'. I think both China and Japan are better described as something else than theocracies, even though they can be described as theocracies.