I'd go back and give my family knowledge of future stocks, then... get my mom to take better care of herself so she'd be active and happy with her granddaughters.
If you could change one thing in history....
- Thread starter steveda19
- Start date
I have a small story idea about a black college man going back to the slavery era (circa. late 1700s/early 1800s) and causing somewhat of an influence on other slaves...and history...
Since it's only a small idea, I haven't thought about how he returns or why he went backwards in time - particularly to that era - in the first place, but I do know that he changes slavery...and how 'black' or darker-skinned folk are viewed in America and around the world over the years up until the protagonists time.
So, yeah. I would change American slavery.
Since it's only a small idea, I haven't thought about how he returns or why he went backwards in time - particularly to that era - in the first place, but I do know that he changes slavery...and how 'black' or darker-skinned folk are viewed in America and around the world over the years up until the protagonists time.
So, yeah. I would change American slavery.
^ I'd be terrified to see how that turns out. Could be good or it could be Nat Turner times 1000 (particularly in the retaliation aspect).
Eh, for what it's worth. Even if they did, other people probably would have decided not to copy it and much of it would still likely be lost.
Eh, for what it's worth. Even if they did, other people probably would have decided not to copy it and much of it would still likely be lost.
Going backward in time could be motivated by wanting to find out what happened to one of the hero's personal ancestors who seemed to vanish from any records after a specific date. Could be a male or female ancestor.
I will put this in spoilercode just in case. This is because I tend to talk about the same things all of the time, and just in case you don't want to read it, you don't have to. It's honestly the only thing I can think of, right now.
I fully admit that my answer to this question is not very ambitious. It speaks to a very personal issue of mine, which is probably rather petty and small-minded in the grand scheme of things. Of course it's selfish, I admit that too. But it's just a thought experiment, ain't it? Can't hurt to talk about it, can it?
Besides, I have a sneaking suspicion that preventing major disasters like 9/11 might have unintended consequences. For example: what if, in the 'new' timeline, the terrorists who were supposed to be responsible for 9/11 decide to attack with nuclear weapons instead?
Obviously we all want to prevent major disasters that are responsible for horrible losses of life. We wouldn't be human if we didn't want to prevent those. But for better or worse, those disasters are part of what we are - they shape our society, and we learn from mistakes like that. Now of course we don't actually WANT disasters like this to happen; we should do all we can to prevent future occurrences of them. But going back in time and preventing them from ever happening? As tempting as it might be to sanitize away everything violent and disturbing from our society, I'm afraid that we might end up with a worse timeline than what we started from.
It's like the movie The Final Countdown (which suggested that it might be possible to prevent the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, but in the end, this is not done), where Martin Sheen has that one line - "At least we returned to the same world we left."
anyhoo, just in case you actually want to hear this, go ahead and click on it. And if not, you can probably guess what it is anyway:
I fully admit that my answer to this question is not very ambitious. It speaks to a very personal issue of mine, which is probably rather petty and small-minded in the grand scheme of things. Of course it's selfish, I admit that too. But it's just a thought experiment, ain't it? Can't hurt to talk about it, can it?
Besides, I have a sneaking suspicion that preventing major disasters like 9/11 might have unintended consequences. For example: what if, in the 'new' timeline, the terrorists who were supposed to be responsible for 9/11 decide to attack with nuclear weapons instead?
Obviously we all want to prevent major disasters that are responsible for horrible losses of life. We wouldn't be human if we didn't want to prevent those. But for better or worse, those disasters are part of what we are - they shape our society, and we learn from mistakes like that. Now of course we don't actually WANT disasters like this to happen; we should do all we can to prevent future occurrences of them. But going back in time and preventing them from ever happening? As tempting as it might be to sanitize away everything violent and disturbing from our society, I'm afraid that we might end up with a worse timeline than what we started from.
It's like the movie The Final Countdown (which suggested that it might be possible to prevent the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, but in the end, this is not done), where Martin Sheen has that one line - "At least we returned to the same world we left."
anyhoo, just in case you actually want to hear this, go ahead and click on it. And if not, you can probably guess what it is anyway:
Last edited:
And that will probably be the conflict of the story: Those who want to retaliate, and those who will still see 'race' and be affected by 'race'....but will want to build America in their own image.
Furthermore, there are the black relationships with Irish individuals who were looked down on as well, and the Native Americans...and possibly other immigrants coming into the country.
lol....
So many ways to take this tentative idea.
Stop Star Trek from getting canceled!
If you go that route, I tried to track a grandfather that died before I was born using state census records, which were compiled every 10 years. I traced him back to 1860 or something, where he was shown as 2 years old. Records on my great-grandfather went back to 1820, but he wasn't in that state in 1810, so no idea where they moved from. Census records listed all persons living on the property, usually by name, including hired hands and their families. This was for a free state though, not sure if southern states listed slaves.
I'd kill Hitler when he was still an aspiring art student.
Ideally, I'd try to stop WWI from happening but I believe that's too complex. So, Hitler it is, then.
Ideally, I'd try to stop WWI from happening but I believe that's too complex. So, Hitler it is, then.
^ TIME NINJA: Coming to SyFy, Fall 2015. I'd watch that.
Yeah, you could change the wording into any number of internet debates or wiki edit wars I've seen over the years, which is what makes it so funny and topical. The writer did a great job.
I was just about to post that! Wikihitory is damn funny, and honestly, the guys in that story sound like they've been posting here.
Yeah, you could change the wording into any number of internet debates or wiki edit wars I've seen over the years, which is what makes it so funny and topical. The writer did a great job.
steveda19
Lieutenant Commander
Im with you. The TOS should have lasted until 1970. Remember the 5 year mission
Religious congregations of the 17th and 18th century kept very well their archives and those papers are now part of the Archives Nationales.
Still, they should have written more, even about insignificant things
I'm satisfied with what we got out of Star Trek, now Firefly, there is a show I would save from an early, undeserved grave.
That book is on my "to read" pile. I'm looking forward to it. I love alternate history.
I've found it interesting that some alternate scenarios for the Civil War have an alternate WWI in which the Confederacy fought with the Allies and the Union with the Central Powers, and that in a CP victory it's assumed that the Confederacy would get reabsorbed by the Union states. Not sure I'd agree with such a conclusion myself, but it's interesting.
Similar threads
