The room Kaede received as her own had recently been furnished. Its size was modest and comparable to modern bedrooms, but the contents were far more opulent than she was used to. A queen-size four-poster bed layered in rich fabrics took the center, its sides lined by long, intricate rugs. A small writing desk and bookshelf stayed against the wall on one side, while a large dressing table flanked by mahogany wardrobes occupied the other.
There was also a closet in the corner that camouflaged itself as a small wardrobe, but actually hid the chamber pot that she hated to be reminded of.
The bedcovers and window curtains all came in a gentle floral-pink, then adorned with a vine-like green pattern that gave it the semblance of a flowerbed. Their overabundance of ruffles and laces projected an air of extreme girlishness. Combined with the large wardrobes that devoted way too much space for clothing -- including another dress that Pascal had already prepared for her -- it made Kaede wonder:
Is Pascal deliberately trying to feminize me?
She definitely needed to have a talk with Pascal about this. Nevertheless, Kaede did appreciate the fact that Pascal at least kept her interests in mind. This was most noticeable in how he left several books on Weichsel in her room, as well as a huge map of Western Hyperion which hung from the wall.
Most meaningful of all -- her room was in the same corridor as Pascal's own, just down the hall that was meant for only the lord's immediate family. It certainly explained the attitude of the maids, who politely addressed Kaede as 'Milady' when they met, only to whisper quietly once she was out of ordinary earshot.
Kaede scowled as she remembered hearing the word 'whore' at least once.
They were partially right though: Kaede wasn't a 'lady' by any means. She had neither the upbringing nor the refinement, and certainly not the noble blood. Furthermore, familiars were meant to be servants for their mage masters, and Kaede's unusual relationship with Pascal certainly seemed to have become a topic of much gossip.
In hindsight, Princess Sylviane had been perfectly reasonable when she arranged for Kaede to stay in the servants' quarters of Oriflamme Palace. But even that did little to quell the rumor mongering.
Give me a break already. Kaede thought as she fell back into her soft bed. Can't a girl just fit in without being judged?
She rather doubted she would have any of these troubles if she was still a boy.
Nevertheless, as Kaede looked to the ceiling of her four-poster bed, she couldn't help feel touched by Pascal's gesture. His summoning had ripped Kaede from her family back on Earth. In exchange, he was offering her the chance to join a new one.
Kaede felt a hint of moisture gather in her eyes as she thought of it that way.
There was never any doubt on whether Kaede would accept. After everything she promised on the roof of Alisia Academy's dormitory keep, she wasn't about to leave Pascal to occupy this hallway by himself. The fact he refused to move into the master bedroom showed that he still wasn't over his father's death, despite the brave front he put on to show the world.
In the meantime though, she had another concern -- and it was one that she needed to tackle now.
"Marina, please take a seat," Kaede said as she sat back upright on the velvet bedcovers. Then, when the maid looked hesitant, her pink eyes almost pleaded: "Please."
The petite maid sat down on the cushy chair at Kaede's reading desk. An uncomfortable silence fell upon the two once more. Even Kaede had trouble starting the conversation as she eyed the shade of black under Marina's reddened eyes. The maid had clearly been crying a lot over the past few weeks.
"How are they treating you here?" Kaede asked before glancing down. Her words were more wispy than usual.
"It's a life." Marina shrugged. Her voice wasn't hateful, but neither did it contain any other emotion. "Majordomo Karsten judges us on a purely professional basis, so he's cordial as long as my work is done proper."
"How are they forcing you to stay?"
Kaede was curious, but now that she asked she felt like a block of insensitivity. Marina's life had been reduced to one of slavery, and here all she could think of was ask more questions.
"They don't need to..." The maid's tone stayed bland even as she pulled up one sleeve and revealed a faintly-glowing tattoo inscribed just above her wrist. It featured two links of chains crossed with what looked like a broom. The symbol seemed to mark Marina as an indentured domestic servant. The word 'law' written just beneath made it obvious that it had been done so on judicial grounds.
"It's a Geas brand," Marina's eyes teared as she explained in a whisper, as though her words might set it off had they rang any louder. "It forbids me from leaving the estate's premises without permission, and will shock me if I attempt to. It also makes it impossible for me to lie when activated, which Majordomo Karsten did before he let me come with you."
Kaede had wondered why Pascal trusted Marina to attend her -- because there wasn't any actual 'trust' involved.
Ever since Marina had been sent away from the academy, Kaede had began reading about the institution of slavery on Hyperion. The practice had been outlawed centuries ago by the Dawn Imperium in the east and the Grand Republic in the north. Even the Holy Imperium, with its historic economy built on slave labor, recognized that slaves were persons and offered them limited rights.
In other words, slavery in Hyperion was much closer to the practices of the late Romans -- especially after the Code of Justinian which guaranteed them basic protections -- than the more infamous Atlantic Slave Trade which treated black slaves as pure property.
The countries of Weichsel and Rhin-Lotharingie both abandoned slavery in its traditional form. However both continued to use 'indentured servitude' as a means of debt collection and punishment. The practice was widely seen as an effective means of 'justice', as it forced the criminal to provide recompense for their crimes by working off a timed contract for the wronged party. However just like the Imperium did for slaves, both nations also gave indentured servants certain rights -- for example Marina could own private property, and received legal protection from murder or even crippling punishments.
"Can it be removed?"
Marina shook her head.
"They said that while any spell can be dispelled with enough power, this mark will detect any attempt and activate at max intensity. So sure, it's removable. But whether I survive the attempt or not..." She finished before she pulled down her sleeves and covered the mark once more. "The same thing will happen if the brand runs out of mana, which Majordomo Karsten fills periodically as long as I serve here."
"Then... how long do they expect you to stay... an indentured servant?"
Just forcing out those two words burned Kaede's tongue. It might be common in a traditional, eye-for-an-eye legal system. But being synonymous to slavery still gave it a barbaric edge in her worldview. After all, the last society on Earth that practiced systemic slavery was brought to an end when the Dalai Lama's caste-based theocracy in Tibet was overthrown.
"For assisting the attempted murder of a high noble? Life for a life." Marina stated. Then, the maid finally unveiled her acidic disdain as she added: "What did your naive little head think it was going to be? Maybe I would be quietly hung with a sack over my face?"
Kaede winced. Perhaps the activated brand was making Marina a little too honest.
"I'm sorry, Marina, but please believe me. I didn't want anything this bad for you..."
Yet even as she said that, Kaede couldn't look Marina in the eyes. It wasn't even naivety. Kaede simply didn't think about it much back then. Sure, she had voiced objections, but she also allowed herself to be silenced the moment Pascal grew insistent. Though at the same time Marina was also right -- any punishment feudal law would have handed down for her role in the assassination attempt would be far worse than this.
The Samaran girl then took a deep breath and tried again:
"You paid loyalty to a master for raising you. I can understand that. I even respect it. But my own life is tied to Pascal's. So just as you saw no other choice, neither did I."
"W-why do you care if I believe you?" Marina retorted in a standoffish tone. "I mean, if that's what you believe, then why are you even being nice to me? I could have killed you in connection to him."
"Because I know you were candid in your offer," Kaede answered as she forced her sincere gaze to stay on Marina's swollen sea-green eyes. "And because if you hadn't said anything, that assassin's arrow would have shot straight through my neck."
"Isn't that why you had my punishment reduced to this?" The maid interrupted, though her tone softened mid-sentence. It was a faint sign that behind the barbed wires of pride, there was also a shadow of gratitude.
Clearly, the maid had conflicts of her own when it came to Kaede. There was no doubt that Marina blamed Kaede for her current predicament. After all, Kaede did trick Marina and used her to bait the assassins into a trap. But at the same time, Marina also seemed to recognize that Kaede did help her -- even if this help didn't actually leave her with much of a life.
"I had wanted to go further but... Pascal wouldn't budge." Kaede explained. "However I don't think this is the right treatment for you, not for what you did. And... there is one more reason..." The familiar girl noted as her wispy voice fell to barely a whisper. "You were my first friend in this world, Marina, and I really didn't want to let go."
"Well that's impossible now," Marina's sour retort came as a matter of fact.
A brief silence returned, followed by a deep, heartfelt sigh from Kaede.
"I know... I'm occasionally idealistic, not spontaneously idiotic."
The Samaran girl wondered if she would ever again see that angelic smile -- the one that lifted her spirits during her gloomy initial week in this world. An idea then struck her and Kaede pursed her lips in deep thought as she struggled to consider its details. Pascal's intentions for her standing did seem quite obvious, which meant she needed a servant she could rely on.
She only wished that her 'trust' wasn't founded on a penal curse.
"Marina, I think... I can still offer you something," Kaede gently tested the waters. "Since Pascal will probably assign me a servant, would you be willing to become my maid? I promise I'll treat you as kindly as I can. And I welcome you to voice your objections when I do misstep."
Marina's eyes swelled in surprise. Yet within those rounded, glassy orbs also clashed a conflict between disbelief and suspicion. If there were any appreciation at all, they were very faint traces.
It's going to take a looooong time for her to trust me again. Kaede sighed. "Would it help if I let you hit me?"
The maid's eyebrows went up further. Of all things, she clearly wasn't expecting that.
"I'm told the spell will also activate if I try to physically harm another person," she muttered.
Though one point was clear: she did want to hit Kaede, or give the familiar a hard slap, or some other medium of venting anger and frustration upon the Samaran girl who tricked her back at the academy.
That's... probably a good sign, actually, Kaede thought. The desire to vent was both more direct and less extreme than the alternative -- when anger transformed into hatred and buried itself as a scheming desire for revenge. Maybe there's a slim chance after all.
"You won't always have his favor like now, you know," Marina warned as she wiped her eyes. "Especially once he becomes the Lotharins' king consort. There will be more people around him then, powerful figures far more interesting than just a novelty familiar."
It was an odd way to agree, however tentative it was. But at this point Kaede simply sagged with relief to hear an opportunity.
"Then I just have to keep up," she answered, a faint smile finally returning to her expression.
It was easier said than done. However Pascal had summoned her for a companion in his long journey, and Kaede promised that she would do her best to support him. Besides, knowing what she did about Pascal, Kaede doubted that the young lord was the fickle type. He had promised her that she would become part of his household, and Pascal took his promises very seriously.
She also didn't forget Marina's former occupation for a second.
"Although... that does lead me to a request for you, Marina," Kaede began. "Since you were an observer for an Imperial lord before this..."
Marina blinked several times, her expression suddenly blank and lost.
"I won't ask about your former master's identity," Kaede reassured with a wave. "But could you keep a tab on as many happenings within this keep as you can? Inconspicuously? And tell me if you find anything that I may find of interest, especially anything that feels out of place or suspicious."
After all, there was no better counterespionage than the eyes of a former spy.
"You want me to spy on the staff and visitors for you?" the maid whispered with incredulity, as if the list of surprises would never end.
"I'm not sure if 'spying' is the best word. More like, 'looking out for spies'," Kaede returned an awkward smile. "Heaven knows that a landgrave has his foes. I don't think Pascal underestimates most opponents, but arrogance certainly leaves chinks in the armor. And it's part of my job to watch out for his back."
"What makes this any different from my last mission then?"
Marina struck Kaede with one last hammer for the night, but the latter made almost an immediate recovery this time:
"Because you can just leave any info with me," she smiled back with tired eyes, "and I'll handle the reckless parts this time."
...
The next morning, when Kaede inquired Pascal about her idea at breakfast, the latter replied with an incredulous tone:
"You want to make her a lady's maid?"
"I don't know how much of a 'lady' I am, but why not?" Kaede asked. "I know her well. She's trained, in more ways than one. It seems a good fit."
Pascal shook his head in disbelief.
"Marina is qualified. That I have no doubt. But a lady's maid -- and you are a lady, as far as this household is concerned -- is a considerable step up from just an average housemaid, let alone an indentured maid."
Pascal then met her stiff gaze and finally seemed to realize why she was doing this.
"You are being way too easy on her." He sighed.
"'In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity'... doubly so since she did try to help me," Kaede stated with a faint smile. "Besides, I still like her."
Pascal looked thoughtful for a moment, then:
"Is that another quote from your world?"
"Winston Churchill. Some consider him a great leader," Kaede added with a sarcastic tone. "I thought he was a racist warmongerer who committed crimes against humanity." She thought of Churchill's attempt to stop decolonization and his role in worsening the Bengal Famine. "But even people like him have at least some kindness."
It is amazing how thourghly propgandized Americans and westerners have become so that they believe no one in the world could come to hold an opinion counter to the American narrative without themselves being a victim of the enemies propaganda 🙄
The joke I've heard--
A chinese official visits his American counterpart.
The American asks - "so why are you visiting the United States?"
Chinese official - "I come to study your propaganda to help modernize ours."
American official - "I'm sorry. You're mistaken. We have no propaganda here."
Chinese official - "That is exactly what I came here to learn."
Wow. Lot of people upset in here. It makes since for her character to have these views as she is both part Russian and her only friend was part Chinese. The author never said Kaede was all knowing or perfect in her assessments. This isn't "Somewhere Else Entirely" where the MC takes a feudal society through 800 years of development. If she were to talk about democracy with anyone other than Pascal she could be killed as that is a threat to the aristocracy.
Taking lessons from earth during a similar time period is perfectly logical.
Kaede is written to be an internationalist, so she consumes information from everywhere. It's why she knows 3 Earth languages and dabbles in another 2. A lot of scholarship she cites are American -- partly because I'm American and that's where I learned most of geopolitics and history.
The problem of course is that some people here have never been exposed to views outside of what Western mass media paints. One of the first things I noticed when I got into English political science academia (i.e. materials taught in places like the Harvard Kennedy School) is just how much the tone and contents differs from mass media (which is largely propaganda).
After all, the last society on Earth that practiced systemic slavery was brought to an end when China overthrew the Dalai Lama's caste-based theocracy in Tibet.
"Winston Churchill. Some consider him a great leader," Kaede added with a sarcastic tone. "I thought he was a racist warmongerer who committed crimes against humanity." She thought of the policy-induced Bengal Famine before shrugging. "But even people like him have at least some kindness."
Seriously? This kind of stuff, on top of the soviet crap, does nothing but make your novel seem like a propaganda repeater. Not particularly good when your characters have been becoming progressively less likeable since leaving the Academy grounds
Sigh. Really?
I've always tried to keep Kaede's view neutral and focused on the academically proven sources rather than simplified political narratives. Because what's found in mass media is too often political propaganda.
Here is a well-cited article by The Guardian (UK) discussing Tibet during the reign of Dalai Lama. You'll find plenty of this information all over as Tibetan theocracy is well known by historians and well documented with material evidence thanks to how recent it was.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism
Until 1959, when China cracked down on Tibetan rebels and the Dalai Lama fled to northern India, around 98% of the population was enslaved in serfdom. Drepung monastery, on the outskirts of Lhasa, was one of the world's largest landowners with 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. High-ranking lamas and secular landowners imposed crippling taxes, forced boys into monastic slavery and pilfered most of the country's wealth – torturing disobedient serfs by gouging out their eyes or severing their hamstrings.
More on this can be found in the writings of historians like Michael Parenti -- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0739314032000145242
"The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation--including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: "When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion."21 Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then "left to God" in the freezing night to die. "The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking," concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet.
In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands, and hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling. The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master's cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off."
Similarly, here is Shashi Tharoor -- a well known Indian diplomat, historian, and UN Undersecretary General, dressing down Britain and Churchill's crimes in the halls of Oxford University itself. Do you think he could get away with spewing 'propaganda' about Churchill while talking among the best scholars in England?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HArV2k3coAc
The great Bengal Famine during the Second World War, when 4 million people died because Winston Churchill, deliberately as a matter of written militant policy, proceeded to divert essential supplies from civilians in Bengal... He said that "the starvation of anyway underfed Bengalis mattered much less than that of sturdy Greeks". And when conscience-stricken British officials wrote to him, pointing out that people were dying because of this decision. He peevishly wrote in the margins of the file, "why hasn't Gandhi died yet."
So tell me -- why is it okay for me to write that Stalin "practiced murder on an industrial scale" (v2ch2). But suddenly it's not okay to point out that Churchill committed crimes against humanity?
Dalai Lama's caste-based theocracy in Tibet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Uprising_Day
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfs_Emancipation_Day
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Tibetan_unrest
@Aorii The British had their fair share of monstrous actions. But at least the victims are allowed to openly berate their aggressors. The Chinese refuse to let anything other than their fairy tales be told. They've so thoroughly brutalized history that nobody even knows what the truth is anymore.
For a character who claims to value history like Kaede, it's extremely jarring to have her sing praises for China all the time. It really does feel more like a propaganda piece than- whatever this story is supposed to be.
Not to mention that institutionalized slavery is alive and well in the modern world... Even forgetting the cases where it's not institutional like human trafficking. That much can be excused by a young kid turning a blind eye to modern tragedies that don't affect them, though.
@Cipiteca396 The first wiki article you cited is literally tagged with this for its lack of objectivity.
This article is about a political debate... This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic
So even by wikipedia standards, this article is labelled overpoliticized and considered garbage tier. And wikipedia isn't an acceptable source for any decent publication to begin with. I've personally seen edit wars waged out on wiki due to the topic being overtly political.
China is a strawman argument. My one-line statement was purely on what the Dalai Lama did while he was in power -- because it is an annotation about slavery -- and not about what the Chinese did or did not do afterwards. Such tactics are something I most often see Neonazis use to deflect/derail discussion of German atrocities in WW2 ("the allies committed war crimes too!") and colonial apologists to justify British / French / Spanish / Portguese / Japanese crimes against humanity.
The fact you see Kaede as "singing praises for China" when she merely said they "overthrew the Dalai Lama" -- a neutral, factual statement, says more about your views when reading than Kaede's.
I used the term "systemic slavery" for a reason, because yes everyone knows that slavery has not been eradicated. Tibet was the last known case where an entire society openly practiced slavery on a large scale. Though one could make the argument that 'systemic slavery' still exists in the form of the US prison system. But that's not a discussion for historians like Kaede.
@Cipiteca396 This may not be an academic paper but Kaede is written as an academic and I have standards. How about you try arguing with a proper source instead of using a wiki article so bad even wikipedia labels it garbage?
I have my own sources that I trust on the topic China (my favorite being Richard Baum's The Fall and Rise of China, Rana Mitter's A Bitter Revolution, Graham Allison's Destined for War, all of which I highly recommend for anyone interested in the complexity that is modern China.) so I thank you for not trying to twist my opinion with poorly made arguments based on politicized wikipedia articles. Looking for a source based on a narrative that you're already convinced by is what psychology calls Confirmation Bias.
Kaede rarely mentions China. In fact I mention Singapore more than China, as Lee Kuan Yew -- the Father of Sinagpore -- is written as one of her role models. She talks about Russia from the context of Russian history because she's part Russian (and yes, she "over-glorifies Russia" so much she accused Stalin of industrialized murder, great argument).
I did not use the term "liberate" even once, either in chapter or in my comments. So stop putting words in my mouth. The fact you cannot stop using a strawman argument even after me pointing it out means there's no further point to this discussion.
@Aorii You might be right about talking being pointless. I've been trying to avoid you, but I'm rather easy to rile up...
@Aorii
Yes Soviet, Kaede and her dad repeat enough of it, but I didn't say these two were.
While Tibet was a theocracy, China is well known for their crimes there and has distorted the narrative beyond recognition. Their claims of "liberating" Tibet and such would be sketch enough even without the knowledge of what's going on in other areas China wants to dominate. A country that is known to engage in genocide decided to "protect human rights" in Tibet? Yeah right.
I'll also add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedhun_Choekyi_Nyima to the list.
I find it utterly unbelievable that someone supposedly schooled in Japan and being well read would praise the Chinese government for anything, let alone annexing a country. She also should know damn well that effective slavery is practiced throughout most of Asia and Africa. It's particularly hilarious that she'd refer to a caste-system of serfs yet be ignorant of the similar system still practiced in the USSR at that time and the Untouchable system in India also quite alive until decades after the Dalai Lama moved there.
So yeah, either Chinese propaganda or incompetent researching, take your pick.
Churchill ... as I understand it, he was certainly what you could call "appropriately racist for the time", and there's no lack of things to accuse the British Empire of, but the description you used for him is more typically of how propaganda describes him.
The Bengal Famine wasn't the result of a single action, nor was it the only thing going on at the time... go recheck the state of WW2 in 1942-1943, it was rather busy. Britain was on a strict rationing system and would be until the '50s, which isn't anything nearly as bad as what was happening in Bengal but illustrates that there were food shortages everywhere. Then there's the whole Japanese occupation of Burma cutting rice supplies to Bengal. It's convenient to place the blame on Churchill but, again, someone claiming to be a scholar of history and geopolitics would have a far better understanding of how India was governed and the mess of other problems that combined to create that tragedy.
The claim he's a warmonger... that's actually hilarious considering when he was in power. He was PM between 1940 and 1945, a pretty significant figure in the Allied forces, I'm sure you know that though. He was a military leader, he was a minister for parts of WW1 as well, and was vocal about the threat posed by the Nazis and his opinions on Communism. On the other hand, his second term starting in 1950 was one more tilted towards peace and stability, including diplomatic relations with the USSR.
My point? Someone like Kaede would only come to such an excessively one-sided opinion by either in a group directly impacted by things Churchill did or by not doing any real research on him. He wasn't a paragon of virtue, but her assessment is equally wrong.
You've tried to charactse Kaede as an intelligent person with considerable knowledge of history yet she keeps speaking with naivety and bias. She and Pascal both seem to have been reduced to idiot children so that the princess looks better.
All great nations and all great leaders also carry great darkness, which is apparent most to those who opposed them. I doubt any man is shrewd enough to keep himself in power without exercising at least one Machiavellian evil.
Yes, there are levels to the atrocities any nation or individual has committed in history, but any historian would be wise to not forget the evils even a man, who by balance of their rule would be considered a hero of the nation, does in the course of their governance. If we do, then we will quietly let it happen again to others until one day it will quietly be enacted on ourselves.
Churchill was a master tactician, a brilliant politician, and an enigmatic beacon for tenacity, but like so many in the history of the world he was a passive racist and his policies outside of war caused many to suffer and die needlessly due to that passive racism. It's a sad truth, but one that is true nonetheless.
Slavery of their own people was practiced in Tibet, but I would argue that China during our time practices slavery of foreign conquers and refugees, especially the religious. So it isn't that slavery was eradicated by China but from then on moved to the shadows. Tibet was the last country to practice slavery openly. Many still do in various forms, but quietly and sparsely, both the Western "Great" Nations as well as the Eastern ones. Information on such is sparse, but there's enough there to draw speculation. As always, history will continue to be darken than it is ever written.
@kaithar @Azurtha
Churchill ... as I understand it, he was certainly what you could call "appropriately racist for the time"
No Churchill isn't. In fact his actions horrified many of his contemporaries. See my citation from Shashi Tharoor in earlier comments. He goes into detail on this topic in the book Inglorious Empire. Churchill is cited as a warmongerer due to his repeated request to use military force to stop the decolonization of the British Empire.
I do agree with Azurtha's comment that Churchill proved exactly what Britain needed in a time of war. Nevertheless in my opinion he's a terrible human being who has been overglorified. And as I write Kaede as a humanist she rather shares that value.
It's particularly hilarious that she'd refer to a caste-system of serfs yet be ignorant of the similar system still practiced in the USSR at that time and the Untouchable system in India also quite alive until decades after the Dalai Lama moved there.
Serfdom in Russia was abolished in 1861. One could argue the USSR's gulags were "slave labor" but then so are the prison systems in many countries (including modern America). The Dalits in India -- while still seeing discrimination -- was long phased out by the 1950s. In fact one of India's first ministers under the Nehru government was an 'untouchable'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar
Sorry but these are poor attempts to make a parallel and shows a clear lack of understanding about the topic and I will not entertain it further.
China is well known for their crimes there and has distorted the narrative beyond recognition.
Oh I've done my research on China. See my citations earlier. But as I noted in previous comments
(1) I will not entertain the argument tactic of "But the allies committed war crimes too!" that's so often used by neonazis.
(2) I did not use the term "liberate" even once in any of my arguments, because I don't buy into the Chinese narrative.
(3) China is not the only side that distort the narrative, as CIA collaboration with the Tibetan religious elite to rewrite the narrative is also well documented.
@kaithar Also, if you want to talk about trying to change the narrative, then we'd have to talk about Britain who is the king of doing this. In Operation Legacy the British literally tried to rewrite history on the reality of their imperial colonialism by destroying evidence of their guilt and then flooding the world with propaganda. For example, see
https://novaramedia.com/2021/10/11/operation-legacy-how-the-british-elite-re-wrote-world-history/
This is a big part of why our narratives on Churchill is so distorted.
@Aorii Collectivization ... Constitutional change in 1950 to end Untouchability (there was resistance and discrimination long after) ... Yeah, this is a waste of time, your bias is far too much hassle. I'm sorry that not cherrypicking is so offensive to you.
Oh yeah, we keep using the term liberate because that's literally what the Chinese said to justify invading Tibet. If you don't buy into that narrative then don't bother using terms like "overthrow" when you mean "invasion and occupation".
@kaithar I've actually read Tibetan history which I doubt you have. Tibet declared independence in 1913 during the breakup of the Qing dynasty, just like many other regions in China during the Warlord Era. However they were never given recognition by any international state or government except Mongolia (another breakaway state, but one that did receive eventual recognition internationally). This mean it is an actor of the Chinese Civil War. You can tell when ROC/Taiwanese maps also clearly state that 'Tibet is a province of China'.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.svg
Saying "China invaded and occupied Tibet" would be like saying "France invaded and occupied La Rochelle during the French Wars of Religion" or "America invaded and occupied the Confederacy during the Civil War". Just because I refuse the Chinese propaganda doesn't mean I embrace the Western propaganda in its place.
Hence I use the word 'overthrow' which is neither a positive or negative term. I'm willing to change it to "Dalai Lama ... was overthrown" if you feel that placing China as the actor distorts the conversation. But his overthrowing ended the Tibetan caste serfdom is a fact.
Real history is more nuanced than political narratives.
From what I read above, despite me not being anywhere near good in history it’s pretty clear that the other 2 people got angry over a single factual statement about China, which in no way supported it. Simply because a action had a small good effect doesn’t mean the action is not viewed as bad or good by the writer. Only that it is a thing that happened.
As for the Churchill point the thing written only talked about him *having* a role in the bengal famine, not being the sole cause of it. Though the other person clearly tried saying otherwise despite what was clearly written.
@Person12345 Read the version we were arguing about at least.
Before
After all, the last society on Earth that practiced systemic slavery was brought to an end when China overthrew the Dalai Lama's caste-based theocracy in Tibet.
"Winston Churchill. Some consider him a great leader," Kaede added with a sarcastic tone. "I thought he was a racist warmongerer who committed crimes against humanity." She thought of the policy-induced Bengal Famine before shrugging. "But even people like him have at least some kindness."
After
After all, the last society on Earth that practiced systemic slavery was brought to an end when the Dalai Lama's caste-based theocracy in Tibet was overthrown.
"Winston Churchill. Some consider him a great leader," Kaede added with a sarcastic tone. "I thought he was a racist warmongerer who committed crimes against humanity." She thought of Churchill's attempt to stop decolonization, as well as his role in causing the Bengal Famine which killed millions, before shrugging. "But even people like him have at least some kindness."
I still maintain slavery was abolished before China decided to take over. I would also argue that the reason they didn't get proper recognition is much the same problem as Taiwan has: China throws a fit if you disagree with their version of the map.
I'm not interested in continuing this stupid argument because of a comment by what looks like a freshly registered throwaway account.
@kaithar How do you access versions here?
Every country throws a fit about their map lol. It's like how US nearly declared war on Canada over the Alaska border dispute, until the Brits realized they can't win such a war and backed off.
@Aorii Sadly I haven't found a way, it's just useful that I had the right bits quoted. I've thought about doing client side versioning but it's sort of pointless if it has to be triggered manually, since I don't know a clean way of watching for edits. Dunno if wayback tries to index anything here, I suspect not.
@Cipiteca396 Here's a pretty good example of why no politicized article on wikipedia can be trusted. Because propaganda wars keeps spilling over into it. (note -- It's an image of an edit comparison)
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c8c932540a3de5957811d20d23bc466e
@CaptainMeow to be fair, the after is still accurate for what it says, the before is the problem. It might be accurate, I know they're pretty far-right but not if they are neo-nazis, but it still likely violates a ton of content policies. The way it's phrased seems like it runs afoul of the NPOV guidelines (my basic understanding is that wiki itself must not have first-party opinions), since it's an active group it likely has burdens from biography of living people or whatever the version for groups is (there should be elevated scrutiny on sources and impartiality iirc), I can remember what the policy for current events is but it'll apply, and of course references should be under extra scrutiny. The change could be claimed as pro-NATO but the before is equally pro-Russia.
@kaithar Before 2022, everyone from human rights groups (i.e. amnesty international) to international courts to even western media outlets labelled the Azov Battalion as a "far-right extremist" group guilt of war crimes. Israeli papers opened called them neonazis and nazi idolaters (and the Jews don't make light of such matters).
Suddenly now such opinions are "pro-Russia" lol. The power of revisionist propaganda is real.
@CaptainMeow Please refrain from having a discussion about a topic completely unrelated to the chapter here.
@CaptainMeow I think you misunderstood my meaning. I'll spoiler the full explanation since it's long, but my point isn't that either version is wrong or inaccurate. It's how and where the words are used.
I can say, objectively that Earth is a planet according to the definitions accepted by the relevant fields of study and that it is of a type that could sustain a number of forms of complex organic life. I could send that to an alien many light years away and they would agree with it, assuming an exact translation. That is a strict NPOV description. In an ideal world, we could use just these kind. That it is a battalion of the National Guard seems good by that standard.
I could shorten things and just say it is a planet that supports life, but now I have a objective statement that has to be qualified. Given the differences between me and the alien, it can only be held to be neutral if the readily agree on all the required definitions. We'd probably have to reference and agree sources for what it means to support life vs sustain life, we'd have to reach an agreement on the definition of life and what specific ranges can live here, and we'd have to qualify when since the statement is current to when it was made and reflects a variable state. Still, the qualifying references are objective so it is also such. Reasonably unbiased people can probably agree to far-right meaning the same thing you and I are using it to mean so it's still objective, still neutral, fine provided acceptable citations are given.
If I were to say Earth is a nice place to be, we'd have problems to fill trucks. I'm phrasing it as fact, and it could be qualified into something objective in relative context of my experience, but it's still entirely subjective description. Another example is a pain scale, people don't have agreed absolutes of pain experiences to use as calibration. This is why I dislike the before. Your sources could, for any specific aspect, be objective truth, subjective opinion, subjective description, or an interpretation in the form of narrative or commentary. It's almost certainly a mixture of them because few things exist as purely one of those types. Even this comment contains all those types.
So, far-right can be considered objective npov, I don't think the rest can't for various reasons I'll list.
"Extremist" is ugly because it should and often is an objective term but to be so you need a definition for context. Far-right covers plenty of related ideology, to make it objective we need evidence and reasoning for which bits they are amplifying and how they act on it. We'd also have to address that extremists have negative images but not all are that bad. Strict vegans are animal product extremists, the Pope is a Christian extremist, and if we thing that's factual and/or bad is dependent on bias. Most vegans would likely object to the description and the Pope likely thinks his views are good, other people may or may not agree.
"Guilty of war crimes" requires solid citations to survive. To be objectively guilty they must be tried and convicted, until then no amount of evidence gets you beyond subjective guilt that is alleged because judicial law says so. War crimes are slightly easier to claim about except that you need to specify exactly what the crime is, identify exactly which ratified treaty prohibts it, prove who did it, prove their guilt to the appropriate standard of definition, and prove they are under the jurisdiction of both the treaty and the court at the time of the offense. This is why war crimes are a pain to get convictions for. Even if you pass all those requirements it still isn't neutral because the legitimacy of the parts and morality of the actions are inherently subjective opinions of specific people and groups. Ask anyone accused by the ICC.
Saying they are definitely neo-nazis is no good, it can be opinion with good citation but not fact... I don't think there's a strict enough definition of the term for everyone to agree, they themselves definitely wouldn't. It's also a problem of how it's applied, most terrorist organisations don't have official statements describing themselves as terrorists or mass-murderers, nor do their spokespeople associate themselves or their group as a whole with such terms. It's "bad for business" you could say. Nazi idolaters is even worse, it has the same issues but now carries a "personal belief or feeling" burden too, admiring and worshipping human cesspits isn't against any defensible laws, as much as we'd sometimes like it to be, and you can't prove it as fact until we open their heads to check how they really feel. Sorry, went off course for a moment there.
Lastly, and this is sorta an important bit, "opinion" is a powerful word. We want Wikipedia to have high quality, unbiased and detailed information, in short we want it to be encyclopedic and trustworthy. To get that we have to make certain concessions, one of which is heavily leaning to being conservative in assertions of truth. Wikipedia isn't supposed to tell us what opinions we should have or who to believe, to be a useful reference entries should tell us facts, evidence and well cited statements of relevant people of a range of stances... clearly labelled and in that order. I agree with the change shown but the information in question should be in an obvious section, in a similarity attributed form to what you just gave, with lots of detail. I don't want one side, I want every credible side in their own words, in the form that I have enough information to start researching if I want to dig deeper on some aspect.
The question of whether Wikipedia is succeeding in doing this is up for debate. The primary research ban is a seriously troublesome double-edged blade, the people most qualified to provide accurate and truthful information on a subject are the subject and/or people involved in it, but they are also the ones we should consider least reliable on many things. For most of the things I need to look up, Wiki is doing good enough... there's little political wrangling over the ISAs of vintage CPU architecture, chemical properties of some molecule I'm curious about, or some bit of decade old public information that the relevant author stopped promoting almost as long ago. Now, if someone wants to go add some accurate primary research to the pages relating to spherical harmonics as they apply to seismology, or the theories involved in antenna design and radio propagation, I promise not to complain. The equations and modelling of that stuff hurt my head.
The media, public figures and diplomats, on the other hand, must never be trusted to be a source of truth. Some journalists and insiders can be that, some insider reporting can be identified as reputable truth, but representatives shouldn't be trusted. Media exists to select and amplify opinion (hopefully truthful ones), public figures exist to convince you of "their truth" (not "the truth"), and diplomats exist to politely complain about what they want you to know. The truth isn't in their interests, except when it is, but neither are lies. That's why none of these people (claim to or actually) tell you "the truth" unless forced, they tell you "opinions", because opinions can be intentionally wrong and anything can be an "opinion", even facts. When is a fact an opinion? When you lack proof. "The Sun is pretty hot, thousands of degrees, but I can't remember the exact numbers" is objectively true, but still an opinion. Hot compared to what? 3,000K or 10,000K? They don't have to tell you the truth, so long as you can convincingly say your words are just opinons, guesses, jokes, or so untrustworthy no one believes you, then you're free and clear. The first and second are historically Trump's legal defenses of choice while last one is the Tucker Carlson defense, in case you were curious.
Propaganda isn't really the domains of lies, that's disinformation. Propaganda is the art of telling only the truth that helps you and as little else as possible. In that sense, both are propaganda, but the point is that they don't have to be wrong to be propaganda, just not "lies that could hurt you". If you can prove a poor liar, the damage can be worse than the poor truth. That's why context and details are bad for propaganda, it makes it harder to lie by telling the truth.
So yeah, I'm not saying the before version is wrong, that's not the problem. The before version influences your opinion, the after doesn't. Saying as little as possible isn't a lie either, it's omitting the problems. Both can be seen as biased in favour of a side but we want the one that is least biased, and here that's the one that removes flavor better conveyed later. Terse but truthful is preferable whereever appropriate, detailed and truthful everywhere else..
Alway remember that there's reasons why it's "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" ... loopholes.
@Aorii *nod* I'll leave that long spoiler, since source qualities are sorta relevant to what we were talking about earlier, but drop the topic otherwise