JeffEngel wrote:The Silesian Confederacy could not protect its citizens from piracy, slaver raids, constant rebellions, or system governors that worked with, even for those pirates and slavers. It appointed plenty of those system governors, who sold their "own" people out to that. Its Navy at best was ineffectual and at worst was part of the problem. The only law and order the Confederacy could count on for centuries was what the IAN and RMN provided as a side-effect of protecting their own concerns and whatever amount of sheer human charity the officers and crews involved felt and could spare from their duties otherwise. I suppose it's worth mentioning that some Silesian local governments sometimes tried to be better, but with that kind of background, they did not have the means.cthia wrote:I keep reading disturbing posts akin to something like 'The Silesians should be happy to get the Andermani compared to who they have now. '
That's truly disturbing and just plain old... wrong.
So yes - if foreign partition and occupation means a whole lot less likelihood of getting robbed, raped, enslaved, or killed, for you and your family, then yes, you really should be cheering on the invader. Doing otherwise would go out the far end of disturbing and safely into just plain wrong.
States exist for the benefit of their people, not the other way around. The Confederacy hadn't benefited its people for a long, long time.
The Anderman Empire certainly does benefit its people. It's a bit more eager to make the people of other planets its people than suits 21st century A.D. (or maybe even 20th century P.D.) sensibilities, and that's a perfectly fine thing to count against them - within reason. And it's a centralized system without generous provisions for people making up their minds about the direction of the state on a popular basis - another thing to count against them, within reason. But it does take care of its people, and it will often make a point of making other people its people specifically when it can do it so much better than the existing government can. They deserve the credit for that at least as much as the blame for expansionism and political centralization.
The Andermani - and now, finally, Manticore - are fully on the side against the pirates, slavers, and terrorists. The Confederacy's governnment and elite never were. Which side do you think the Silesian people should be on? Which side would you want to be on?It makes me want to go and find Helga Boltitz and give her a big huge heaping helping of love and understanding. IMO, she basically issued this same concern to Gwen Archer regarding Manticore's help with Dresden. In a nutshell, why can't a polity just plain be good for us, not just better than what we have. That statement is denigrating and doesn't show much promise.
Silesia's not Talbott. I'm not saying Helga didn't have a point, but she was selling Manticore short still and was worrying about a political arrangement that would nullify Dresden's accomplishments and identity, an arrangement not like what came to pass there.
The Silesian Confederacy was not "just plain good for" Silesians. It wasn't a quaint burg with problems. It was a place where the wolves roamed free and the shepherds worked for them more often than their herd.
But of course. I appreciate your angle Engel. Thank goodness if a foreign power comes along that is a better fit.
Yet thank Tester if a foreign power comes along that is the right fit. Again, I think that was Helga's entire rant in a nutshell to Archer.
.