Thande

Donor
I seem to recall, way back when the narrative was around the late 18th, turn of the 19th century and the Jacobin wars were raging, that you did not believe NY would dominate, because major immigration as well as trade into the Mississippi Valley would flow up the Saint Lawrence to Mount Royal, which would become the Big....Maple I guess. That NYC of OTL was a fluke of chance, nothing deterministic about the Hudson Valley to the Great Lakes being some sort of predetermined optimal regional channel. Rather it only looked that way OTL due to Yankees not having the Saint Lawrence in their borders, so Montreal (OTL spelling) was deprived of its natural flow with most immigration being diverted south of the US/British possessions border, so the second-best channel westward was favored.

At the same time, I seem to recall someone or other arguing that meanwhile Fredericksburg would also divert, or preempt, which ever term is better, more of OTL's concentration on NY to itself, and we'd wind up with New York being a decidedly second or third rate city, taking a back seat to Mount Royal, Fredericksburg, probably behind both Philadelphia and Boston, maybe even Baltimore or Charleston.

It has been many years since this discussion and maybe my mind is playing tricks? But whatever happened to all that then? How come NYC is still the Apple here?
Your memory does not deceive you. NYC is indeed significantly smaller than its OTL counterpart in 1896 for the reasons you mention - it's just that, despite this, it's still the largest American city because it had such a head start (having almost twice the population of its nearest rival when the ENA was originally formed). There are less reasons for people to move to NYC than OTL, but there also aren't any particular reasons for people to move to any other east coast city in preference to New York.

This is partly because city limits are defined a bit differently in the ENA (due to how the burgess seats in Parliament work) than the more fluxional way they are and were in the OTL USA.
 
Your memory does not deceive you. NYC is indeed significantly smaller than its OTL counterpart in 1896 for the reasons you mention - it's just that, despite this, it's still the largest American city because it had such a head start (having almost twice the population of its nearest rival when the ENA was originally formed). There are less reasons for people to move to NYC than OTL, but there also aren't any particular reasons for people to move to any other east coast city in preference to New York.

This is partly because city limits are defined a bit differently in the ENA (due to how the burgess seats in Parliament work) than the more fluxional way they are and were in the OTL USA.
I looked this word up and still don't understand what the intended meaning is.
 

Thande

Donor
I looked this word up and still don't understand what the intended meaning is.
I mean US cities in OTL tend to legally expand their boundaries in an erratic stop-start way that's not necessarily consistent across the country, remember Ares' map of that one place in Iowa with a bajillion square exclaves all of which get a vote for mayor.
 
I mean US cities in OTL tend to legally expand their boundaries in an erratic stop-start way that's not necessarily consistent across the country, remember Ares' map of that one place in Iowa with a bajillion square exclaves all of which get a vote for mayor.
US municipal enclaves are a terrifying sight.
 
I think I can detect another Diversitarian influence in the British segment, with the ruminating upon the old traditions now lost, as well as resentment about domination by the Americans. Also you bastard for including the suppression of those fine old traditions in your work.
 

Thande

Donor
I think I can detect another Diversitarian influence in the British segment, with the ruminating upon the old traditions now lost, as well as resentment about domination by the Americans. Also you bastard for including the suppression of those fine old traditions in your work.
I love 'em in real life, in many ways the KotB is the antithesis of what I like about British politics, because that's more interesting to write about.
 
What struck me in this chapter was both that "the past" is far away from the POV characters. Things like wagon trains, the rules of war, and parliamentary procedure are all remarked upon as stodgy notions. The journalist remarks his father would've cried over some of the sights and circumstances of the modern day, but he's freshly dead. The wagon train landmark in St. Louis isn't even accurate to the era it's memorializing. Even buildings are affected, with recently built ones looking stodgy compared to newly build ones. Which I suppose is the first half of a narrative juxtaposition on the part of the ITTL author. This is a world and a worldview that's about to be swept away.

Saint Louis also feels very 1920s-ish, and the sub scene feels more advanced than the OTL 19th Century. The technology isn't quite there, despite the fawning descriptions that pop up at points, but there's a kind of muscular pride in their modernity without the preening we had OTL pre-WWI.

The mindfulness about corporate power is also intriguing. Economics plays second fiddle to culture ITTL, but it seems like multinational corporations wouldn't be welcomed by either side terribly much. Societists would seem to want corporate power -- or perhaps the mercantile class is more accurate -- firmly under the thumb of the world state's leadership, because that's just the natural state of human affairs. The Diversitarians, meanwhile, probably see corporations as a homogenizing threat (Globalization / Americanization OTL) unless they specifically tailor their products to the national character of each culture. So maybe you still have a McDonalds in London and Rome, but their menus are radically different.
 
So maybe you still have a McDonalds in London and Rome, but their menus are radically different.
You know, I think it might go the opposite. You get your McDonalds in Rome and Moscow and Tokyo serving exactly what the Americans like, with no changes to allow any 'appropriation' of the foreign recipes, no Nurnburgers or McArabias/McTurcos. Likewise Chinese food restaurants will only be serving authentic Chinese food, no fortune cookies or north American style egg foo young.
 
You know, I think it might go the opposite. You get your McDonalds in Rome and Moscow and Tokyo serving exactly what the Americans like, with no changes to allow any 'appropriation' of the foreign recipes, no Nurnburgers or McArabias/McTurcos. Likewise Chinese food restaurants will only be serving authentic Chinese food, no fortune cookies or north American style egg foo young.
Given Diversitarianism is, well, diverse, you may well get both approaches.
 
You know, I think it might go the opposite. You get your McDonalds in Rome and Moscow and Tokyo serving exactly what the Americans like, with no changes to allow any 'appropriation' of the foreign recipes, no Nurnburgers or McArabias/McTurcos. Likewise Chinese food restaurants will only be serving authentic Chinese food, no fortune cookies or north American style egg foo young.
I imagine some of the debates on what is the "correct" Diversitarian treatment of food culture could get quite heated.
 
I imagine some of the debates on what is the "correct" Diversitarian treatment of food culture could get quite heated.
It'd be like Italians deriding other people for putting ketchup on their spaghetti. Just a little worse. Only a little.

JUST LET ME DINE IN PEACE! :D
 
It'd be like Italians deriding other people for putting ketchup on their spaghetti. Just a little worse. Only a little.

JUST LET ME DINE IN PEACE! :D
Ketchup on spaghetti is horrible, of course, but as long as that is you who eats that thing, it's not my business. :D
 
I imagine some of the debates on what is the "correct" Diversitarian treatment of food culture could get quite heated.
OTOH, what must Societist cuisine be like? It probably isn't an issue early in the movement, but considering the references to breaking up families and zonal rotation of population, they don't lack for ambition when it comes to ironing out the lives of its citizens. Plus, there was that reference to a Carolina town having a local specialty of horse flesh until the Societist sink their teeth in.
 
Ketchup on spaghetti is horrible, of course, but as long as that is you who eats that thing, it's not my business. :D
Plain spaghetti with melted butter, ketchup, and powdered parmesan is one of my "too much of a hurry to cook" comfort foods, which I admit doesn't say much for my cooking skills. It's certainly no worse than spaghetti with a lot of those pre-made sauces you can buy.
 
Plain spaghetti with melted butter, ketchup, and powdered parmesan is one of my "too much of a hurry to cook" comfort foods, which I admit doesn't say much for my cooking skills. It's certainly no worse than spaghetti with a lot of those pre-made sauces you can buy.
I'd be tempted to say that they'd improve without parmesan (melted butter, herbs and parmesan is a real pasta recipe in Italy, although usually for ravioli). However, I assume you are American. I guess those pre-made sauces would be grounds for a poisoning indictement here, but I solidarize. :)
 
Top