Because I'm a monarchist hahaha. And about the monarchies the more I imagined in the independencias. For example the Russian Empire - we could have independence from Poland and Finnish, Austro-Hungarian Empire - Hungaria could become independent and so on, and with independence such countries could adopt a monarchy like Norway did for example.
A less chauvinism, racist and homophobic world
- Thread starter QueenMaud
- Start date
Because I'm a monarchist hahaha. And about the monarchies the more I imagined in the independencias. For example the Russian Empire - we could have independence from Poland and Finnish, Austro-Hungarian Empire - Hungaria could become independent and so on, and with independence such countries could adopt a monarchy like Norway did for example.
There are inherent limits to what the Catholic Church will ever accept. Its disciplines can adapt to the times, but not its dogmas. A good example is clerical celibacy (which is a discipline and could change) versus only-male priests (which is dogma and cannot change). Whether anyone agrees ir disagrees with the dogma of the Catholic Church, it is imutable. The only way around that is to leave the Church.
As for the original premise, there is a huge problem with it. Several things are mentioned as being illegalized, but they are ideas: racism, homophobia. Prohibiting ideas, even ones commonly found to be distasteful, is a horrible precedent. If an idea can be banned because it is bad, then other ideas deemed to be bad can be banned. And since the governments have been entrusted with that much power, they have a lot of power to protect. So those governments will be inclined to ban such ideas as threaten that power, on the grounds that they are bad. For example, you mention that your proposal involves a lot more monarchies. I can imagine all sorts of ideas monarchies might want to ban.
Last edited:
Derek Pullem
Donor
I think the issue with the original post is actually its lack of ambition.
Many (most) of the issues arise out of Roman patriarchal tradition which dominated the middle years of the early Church (say 300 CE-600 CE). If somehow you haven't got a Roman Catholic church but instead a Greek Catholic church (Rome replaced by Hellenistic hegemony) then you may get some movement on some of the LGBT issues. Women still represent a problem - the most far fetched pod I can think of would be a Anthony and Cleopatra victory over Octavian and the rest of the Romans. An Egyptian Hellenistic Christian church might be much tolerant to minorities than a Roman one, the Coptic Church not withstanding. And the status of Cleopatra might make the position of women far more equal.
Many (most) of the issues arise out of Roman patriarchal tradition which dominated the middle years of the early Church (say 300 CE-600 CE). If somehow you haven't got a Roman Catholic church but instead a Greek Catholic church (Rome replaced by Hellenistic hegemony) then you may get some movement on some of the LGBT issues. Women still represent a problem - the most far fetched pod I can think of would be a Anthony and Cleopatra victory over Octavian and the rest of the Romans. An Egyptian Hellenistic Christian church might be much tolerant to minorities than a Roman one, the Coptic Church not withstanding. And the status of Cleopatra might make the position of women far more equal.
Yeah, I can't think of any culture or society that has existed that hasn't showed some feeling of superiority towards other cultures/societies.
Well, putting a woman in a position of power doesn't guarantee that women rights will improve; after all, history has had it's fair share of female rulers and queens, and women still couldn't vote until the first half of the 20th century (and that's the right to vote; if we talk about being equal to males regarding inheritance, right to divorce, to get a job, etc. it's even worse).
That's easily doable: just have a more succesful (for the revolutionaries) 1848 and those countries would get independence, though if you go for a bigger net number of monarchies, the I don't know if a Polish monarchy counterweights the disappearence of twenty-odd german monarchies.
I'm interested in why you are a monarchist though, I found it anachronistic and I don't know why there are people who wants a King/Queen. But maybe that's better to discuss in Chat.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Women's right in Egypt were significantly better than under Roman law and despite some erosion under the Ptolemies remained so. It's not a question of saying queen=better rights for women. It's saying that the culture that produced the Queen (and under this unlikely POD a hugely successful one) started with a much more positive attitude towards women than Rome did. And a much more tolerant view of homosexual relations as well.
I could not tell you why I'm a monarchist, because I do not know myself. I have always had a great admiration for the monarchies. Maybe I have become when I realized that my most favorite countries sweden / norway / denmark and netherlands have kings / queen and little social inequality / gender etc.
It's actually quite strange how female rulers, even when powerful and respected, have a weak effect on sexism in society - can we really say that lands under the "Salic Law of Succession" were notably more sexist than lands where women could rule in their own right? And powerful, respected female goddesses seem to have no correlation whatsoever with the way women are treated - see ancient Hellas...
Well, usage of the concrete for construction, arches, domes were Roman contribution to the architecture. Actually the Romans "advanced" quite well in the practical areas like water supply to the cities (aqueducts), canalization (picked up from the Etruscans), massive road/bridges construction (some of their bridges are still there), general urban planning and the buildings unsurpassed in size (and complexity of construction) until the modern times like Colosseum. Their literature was quite advanced and their legal system was well-developed as well.
The Arabs used arches extensively and the influence is undeniable: quite a few arches in the Great Mosque of Cordoba were presents from an allied Byzantine Emperor. The Ottomans picked up on the domes at least after conquest of Constantinople.
Those twenty odd German monarchies would have remained in place had King Frederic William IV of Prussia decided to accept the imperial crown offered to him by the Franfurt National Assembly just like those of them not annexed by Prussia in 1866 did in 1871.
Yeah, I know, but they would not be independent countries...
Last edited:
Being part of the German Confederation since 1815 and of the Confederation of the Rhine and the Holy Roman Empire before that those monarchies hadn't been fully independent either. And the Kingdom of Bavaria e.g. had an embassy in Berlin until 1918.
That's different than racism. Racism posits that there are categories of humanity that differ biologically in their capacities and these are determined primarily by skin color. Preferring your culture over a foreign culture is normal.
I think that the changes posited in the OP are silly, but thinking that homophobia and racism are biological is wild. I can buy sexism to an extent, but historically racism and homophobia are very cultural.
Or basically have no agricultural civilization. There is more egalitarianism in hunter gatherer societies; they also have very simple hierarchies that can reasonably rule out homophobia. No countries or states therefore no chauvinism, though you will have tribal conflicts. Skin colour wouldn't matter very much either as most people would never interact with anyone in another part of the world. That's basically the only way.
"positive attitude towards women" is a tricky subject especially when one is trying to make judgments based upon a single factor.
For example, there were Queens in England and in France there were none so, based upon the "royal criteria" as described above, England was the most <whatever>. However, in France even before the Revolution a married woman could have her own property while in Britain this was not the case even in mid-XIX. In France the divorce law had been introduced in 1792 and divorce could be granted just based upon "incompatibility" while in Britain it was moved from ecclesiastic to civic courts only by Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 and only the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937 allowed women to get divorce on the grounds of adultery which before that was available only to the men. So how are you going to balance an "attitude"?
Ditto for another culture that was just great as far as the female rulers had been involved, Russian Empire: most of the XVIII it was ruled by the women. Based upon the number of female rulers Russia of the XVIII century should be qualified as the most socially advanced place in Europe but I doubt that even the Russians would insist on this being the case.
In the terms of property ownership it was closer to France (of course, we are not talking about the lower classes) but in the terms of divorce it was following the Church rules with a very definite number of cases when it was permitted. However the adultery worked both ways (so it was ahead of Britain for at least a century).
AFAIK, both Russia and France were well "ahead" of Britain in the terms of tolerance of the homosexuals: even if not officially permitted they were quite open, especially when you are talking about the top of society like Phillip of Orleans or Duke de Vendome (reign of Louis XIV) or Grand Duke Sergey Alexandrovich (BTW, can we consider his assassination as an act of a homophobia?
). But even on the less aristocratic level it was seemingly quite common judging by the novels of Marquise de Sad (most of which have nothing to do with "sadism") or some of Pushkin's epigrams.
