Print

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

[Vikarion]

I said Caldari RPers, not characters.   The last IC post of yours I bothered to read was your character jetcaning people into the sun.

Perhaps you posts are more memorable because of a frequent failure to understand what the other side is actually saying, combined with a rather intense vitriol.

Hamish, I don't think that was Bloodbird. 

And BB, no offense, but your posts can, if read a certain way, sound somewhat, ah, confrontational? But then, so can mine, even when I don't intend it at all. So I try to read them without the red lenses on, so to speak.

I intensely disagree with the perception that the current "accepted" understanding of the C/G conflict is a Caldari one. I think it's pretty much the neutral stance, and I can very much attest that I have, ICly, had far more Caldari-favorable interpretation of the conflict than the standard model, and I honestly can't see a reason to try to avoid the (to me!) clear sense of such Chronicles as "Never Again" and so forth. The only explanation I can think of to try to mutate the meanings or explain them away is a desire to whitewash one faction at the expense of another.

But, I could be wrong about motivation. And even if I'm not wrong about that, I can still intensely disagree with others here without considering them to be "bad people" or terrible RPers. So I'm really trying to write with passion and argument, but also trying to remove spite and pettiness.

[Bastian Valoron]

From the Gallente angle, the genocide theory is problematic. If there had been a long history of hate and animosity between them and the Caldari, a large scale attack against civilians might be somewhat understandable but here it doesn't really seem to be that way. It all happened too fast. You need something with a shock value to sell this kind of maneuver to the populace, and all you have is a bunch of sudden appeals to culture etc which couldn't smell less like an excuse or cover-up.

The reaction of the Gallente population to the attempted genocide also seems to be nonexistent, and as others have pointed out, there are examples of peaceful secessions, and that there is something strange about the evacuation of the Caldari Prime. It's almost like there is something more going on here.

I don't have an issue with things being either way but as long as the claimed genocide has no motivation, I can't role-play my Gallente character that way without making stuff up. So to me, Seri's suggestion that Gallente government did not want genocide seems like a more neutral viewpoint, as it avoids the motivation issue.

[Casiella]

There has never been a case in a democratic society where the military pushed for terrible actions that didn't have wide popular support!

...oh wait.

[Bastian Valoron]

There has never been a case in a democratic society where the military pushed for terrible actions that didn't have wide popular support!

...oh wait.

And the military in these cases didn't have any motivation for doing so?

[Vikarion]

From the Gallente angle, the genocide theory is problematic. If there had been a long history of hate and animosity between them and the Caldari, a large scale attack against civilians might be somewhat understandable but here it doesn't really seem to be that way. It all happened too fast. You need something with a shock value to sell this kind of maneuver to the populace, and all you have is a bunch of sudden appeals to culture etc which couldn't smell less like an excuse or cover-up.

Historically, this has not been true in most cases of genocide. Not only has it proven very easy for a government to inflict a genocide without the consent of the society as a whole, it's also been quite true that most governments have managed it without losing popular support. (Also, as far as shock value goes, that element has been provided: the bombing of a Gallente underwater city.)

Again, lets take the Holocaust: while there was a small amount of anti-Jewish feeling among some Germans, by and large, the vast majority of Germans did not desire to exterminate, or even oppress, the Jews. Indeed, as the allied war machine tore Germany apart, a common sentiment was that the destruction was a divine punishment for the treatment of the Jews. And yet Hitler retained popular support for quite some time in Germany, even though reports of the Holocaust were transmitted back to the Germans.

Stalin also managed a fairly popular genocide of his "own" people with the starvation of millions of peasant by conducting a propaganda campaign against them that depicted them as economic villains. The "Kulaks" were largely destroyed and the survivors were forced onto the collective farms, not only with the support of the urban populations of the U.S.S.R., but also with the support of foreign socialists and intellectuals.

Pol Pot managed a genocide in his own country that killed a good portion of Cambodia's total population, and didn't stop until a neighboring country decided they'd had enough of him. I don't presume to believe that the Cambodians hated themselves, but he managed it all the same.

Our perceptions of genocide are somewhat colored by our natural belief that one would need widespread hate and xenophobia to enact a genocide, but this has not historically been the case in many such instance. In the Balkans, with ethnic cleansing, and in Rwanda, yes, genocide is based upon mutual animosity. But in governments throughout history, a record of fear or hate has been entirely unnecessary as a beginning condition in the worst crimes.

So its not at all unlikely or unreasonable to uphold the common reading of the PF as demonstrating an attempt at genocide. And it needn't have been the desire of the Gallente government to completely extirpate the Caldari for it to have been a genocide. It wasn't Pol Pot's plan to completely wipe out the Cambodians, what he wanted was to force the country into a communist agrarian paradise. if such avowedly humane goals can be so productive of human death and suffering, it is hardly unlikely that the sentiments of the Gallente, portrayed in the PF, could not lead to far worse suffering (fortunately fictional).

[Hamish Grayson]

Or if your even thinking of me/my toon - the first remark here kind of produced a "what? When, Why? I don't even..." reaction. Would you bother to clarify?

I confused your character with the Redpants character for some reason.   He was a Gallente character who wore blood stained pants or something.

[Gessenier]

To me, the first Gallente-Caldari war was always due to economics and what might be considered a particularly Fascist/Nationalist mindset among Caldari. In many respects the Gallente Federation has very strong parallels to the old British Empire: Democracy at home and economic Imperialism abroad through its corporations and capitalism. Hell, I think most of Gallente corporations have the same level of political and social power as the East India Company did during the British Empire. Just look at Quafe negotiating with the Amarr at Giran-Fa on behalf of the Fed or the fact that Jacus Roden was able to overthrow President Foiritain when he threatened the Federal Military-Industry with nationalization.

When pieces of fiction state Caldari saying something along the lines of, "Odd isn't it how everything seems to benefit Gallente interests?" I tend to translate that into Gallente Economic Interests. The primary cause of conflict with the Caldari would have been the fact that to me, the Caldari do not make much distinction between their Megacorporations, the individual and national identity. They're all taken together. To them, Gallente Corporations acting in their own self-interests and using their army of lobbyists to get legislation passed in order to benefit themselves would have been perceived by the Caldari as an attempt at the Gallente (As a people and a nation) to oppress the Caldari (As a people and a nation). Whereas most Gallente may have viewed it as simply a few Caldari corporations upset over their inability to compete in a "Free Market." (Not really though, Gallente government/corporate collusion would have been a cause of lack of competition to many Caldari corporations).

Now would I say the first Gallente-Caldari war was a war of Liberation on the part of the Caldari? Yes. However, because the Caldari Megacorporations were also directly linked to the identity of the Caldari, what was primarily a conflict fought due to economic reasons also became an act of self-determination of the Caldari as a people and as a Nation. This is because the Caldari as a people have a very strong Fascist mindset which I'd describe as:

-  A strong sense of collective identity based along nationalist/ethnic lines and shared history, culture and traditions.

- The use of that identity to create emotive and vitalist concepts of behaviour: "What it means to be Caldari."

- A concept of an individual only being a part of his People, the Nation as the representative of the People, and the State as the representative of the Nation. An expectation to subsume individual identity into that of the group and more specifically that of the Nation and the State. The emotive and vitalist aspects of nationalism are then used to give the State itself an almost spiritual or religious aspect.

- The concept of corporations as, "associations of associations" similar to how the State is an "association of associations" of individual, family, groups, people and Nation.  Afforded the same sort of legitimacy over individuals as the State itself.

- Individual, people, Nation, culture, corporations and State are all taken as one under the concept of being, "Caldari."

- The concept of liberty only being used in the sense of the liberty of the people, Nation and State against external factors and not the liberty of the individual against the people, Nation and State.

- A strong sense of militarism and martial spirit - the "meritocratic tradition" espoused by the Caldari is to be found mostly in  another form of organization: Armed Forces and the Military. (More particularly in a modern sense as meritocratic organization was a hallmark of Frederick the Great and the Prussian Army which has served as the basis for almost every modern Western Military.)

Which brings about another point: just as economic factors contributed to the First Caldari-Gallente war it was also a conflict of fundamental ideologies with the tenets of Gallentean liberalism and democracy opposed to Caldari nationalism and fascism. What is unfortunate is that when framed in that context it appears to portray the Gallente as the "Good Guys" and the Caldari as the "Bad Guys" in black and white terms due to modern history and bias. However, this is New Eden and I think every faction is bloody terrible from a modern western perspective and I certainly don't want to RP a Federalist that might as well be a Lawful Good Paladin smiting evil for Justice, Liberty and Democracy -- even if Mjalnar Gessenier certainly does know how to Lay his Hands on the ladies.

I much prefer playing a hypocritical corporate imperialist and damn arrogant Gallentean that goes around telling everyone their way of life is frankly terrible and that they should accept a free market model and allow Federal corporations into their lives so that they can engage in trade protectionism and subsidisation at home until no one else is able to compete and all of New Eden is united in their love of Quafe and overpriced Gallentean haute-couture made dirt cheap in some colonial sweatshop by immigrant Minmatar. I love it how it's only in the Federation they can engage in the most ruthless and cut-throat form of capitalism and the kind of government corruption it entails and still turn around and adjust their white hats and talk about Freedom and Democracy with a straight face. To me, the Federation is full of deep and fundamental dichotomies, and as to whether or not it is truly good or evil is simply a matter of in-character perspectives. That is what I find engaging about the Fed, so I'm always a bit ambivalent towards any sort of judgements that seek to portray it solely as either way when not in an in-game context.

Now, I've used the term Fascism to describe the Caldari mindset, and in many respects it does appear to fit as an ideology for the Caldari State. It is also in many respects a very loaded term in this day and age and brings about all sorts of unintended connotations because the Caldari State is the Caldari State and it's not Italy under Mussolini, Spain under Franco or Germany under Hitler. I've often had difficulty finding an alternative term to describe the Caldari mindset properly because I do know  the subtle OOC subtext that arises if M. Gessenier levels the label of "fascism" against the State in his description of it IC. I personally don't find it fits in some cases regarding the Caldari and the State. I think there should be a Caldari/Napanii word for the particular ideological concepts the Caldari hold but damned if I can find it.

As for the allegations of genocide on the part of the Federation I think that's a matter up for debate and is more a matter of character perspective. It's understandable the Caldari may feel that way but an act of genocide would require a deliberate and premeditated systematic  action aimed solely against the Caldari as an ethnicity and not as the citizens and armed forces of the State. The situation, I think, does not find its parallels in Armenia, Kosovo or Germany and the Holocaust but rather in the area bombardment of civilian targets aimed at breaking morale by the Allies during WW2;  the fire-bombing of Tokyo or Dresden; and the dropping of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is not discounting the fact that the allegation may indeed be a rather hypocritical one of accusing one party of making tenuous assertions against a faction by also making a tenuous assertion, perhaps?

Anyway, meant to post something along these lines sooner but I was too busy grinding away towards a Patton and Lorraine 40t in WoT. Yes, I only drive French and American tanks. Sue me.

[Katrina Oniseki]

I think there should be a Caldari/Napanii word for the particular ideological concepts the Caldari hold but damned if I can find it.

Heiian: This word cannot readily be translated, it is the concept of supreme loyalty over anything else to the State. It applies readily to military service but can be applied to any other work aiding the State.

[Malcolm Khross]

Pretty good write-up Gessenier and pretty solid, I also respect that you're not trying to make it a good-guy vs bad-guy thing. I've personally enjoyed Gessenier's input on IGS even if it makes Malcolm roll his eyes.

I've often described the Caldari STate as Corporate Communism. Not sure how accurate that is, but it seems to fit.

[orange]

I think there should be a Caldari/Napanii word for the particular ideological concepts the Caldari hold but damned if I can find it.

Heiian: This word cannot readily be translated, it is the concept of supreme loyalty over anything else to the State. It applies readily to military service but can be applied to any other work aiding the State.

Perhaps that is not a "good" definition of Heiian.  Thinking about it now, it reads much as an outer sider might see it, the first translation in a bias piece of literature on the Caldari.

In the absence of jagii, the Caldari are not a united people under the State, far from it.   The Caldari are ready to fight & compete with each other and only turn towards an outside threat when it is there.

Heiian might better be described as willingness to sacrifice self for the betterment of the community.   For the early Caldari, Heiian demanded that a grandparent walk out into the snowy blizzard if a new child was born in the dead of winter.  In the Gallente-Caldari War, Heiian demanded that Tovil-Toba and his fleet sacrifice themselves to buy the evacuation of Caldari Prime time.

[BloodBird]

Glad you mentioned that about the meaning of the word regarding Heiian, Orange, as I happen to agree completely. But I'm not sure Tovil Toba is a good example, his sacrifice is highly debatable.

[orange]

Not specifically the final attack, but rather the week long campaign/battle was my thinking.

[BloodBird]

Not specifically the final attack, but rather the week long campaign/battle was my thinking.

True that. Thanks for clarifying your meaning.

[Hamish Grayson]

Glad you mentioned that about the meaning of the word regarding Heiian, Orange, as I happen to agree completely. But I'm not sure Tovil Toba is a good example, his sacrifice is highly debatable.

In order to ensure the survival of his people he sacrificed his crew, his own life and committed an act he probably found morally repugnant.   What's debatable?

[BloodBird]

Glad you mentioned that about the meaning of the word regarding Heiian, Orange, as I happen to agree completely. But I'm not sure Tovil Toba is a good example, his sacrifice is highly debatable.

In order to ensure the survival of his people he sacrificed his crew, his own life and committed an act he probably found morally repugnant.   What's debatable?

Here's an alternative for you;

To ensure the survival of the work-force needed to keep the Caldari corporate hegemony alive he kept the federals off for a week, lost all his ships in the progress, ended up losing his capital ship in the end, and, on the bring of dying anyway due to his ship exploding around him he said 'fuck it' and ordered the ship down on the planet, killing over 2 million people via capital-ship fragment impacting with city, for no reason than 'because I can' and pure, simple hatred.

He was lucky that it had a positive effect by forcing the U-nats out of office instead of polarizing support around them and instilling more gruesome means from the federal fleet.

 - The above is an example of how his 'sacrifice' was debatable. Orange's assertion that his week-long campaign to keep the fed away is rather correct. However - Tovil's order to insert carrier into atmosphere was not in any way a sacrifice as it was likely a choice made out of spite and it carried an immense risk of making things infinity worse for the Caldari instead of better. His gamble paid off for him, though, and the Caldari remember him the greatest of heroes, the feds remember him as one of the lowest of mass-murderers.

Keep in mind this don't reflect how I'd phrase it or argue things it's meant as examples to underline a point made. Rather moot though as I simply meant to point out how Tovil's best known action might not 'count' as a great example of Heiian. There are other, more fitting examples.