• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Lt. Gene Roddenberry in Roswell, Texas

the thing i couldn't fathom was why Roddenberry was flying for the FST when IIRC, he's from California which is depicted as being an independent republic...
According to Wikipedia, GR was born in El Paso, Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Roddenberry

fair enough...

and Colonel Morrison, for those not in the know, is John Wayne - real name Marion Mitchell Morrison (not Michael as he claimed and the author apparently believed...)
 
(I fear I've innocently/naively stumbled onto yet another of those debates where certain US citizens complain about a writer's hidden political agenda...)

No one who'd heard of L. Neil Smith before this thread came along would call his agenda hidden at all. Hell, he and his likeminded SF writers (Jerry Pournelle, Brad Linaweaver, etc) won't shut up about it. A great deal of their fiction is propaganda, pure and simple, and I'd almost be surprised if they disagreed.

But the Roddenberry excerpt didn't interest me enough on its own merits. I didn't think the dialogue was terribly well written, and the basic concept didn't interest me either.
 
^^It reminded me of those bits in Quantum Leap episodes where Sam would, say, meet the young Sylvester Stallone and suggest using a side of beef as a punching bag like he would later do in Rocky. Only much more extended and forced.
 
If you've ever listened to Gene Roddenberry speak I don't know how you'd miss the fact that he was a Texan by birth and early upbringing.

I got a kick out of what I read, and at least part of that is amusement at the nutcase politics.

I'm a mainstream, increasingly-left of center voter who will vote for Obama in November. That said, when I despair of the political culture of this country it's generally because of the conduct and corruption of big Pary politics - the Dems and GOP - and certainly not because we incubate so many utopian and silly political and cultural movements here.

Scrape the surface a little, and a guy like Roddenberry has a lot more in common with a guy like L. Neil Smith than he does differences. And God Bless America for that. Makes me proud. :techman:
 
I seen this schlock before. From the patently absurd idea of Adolf Hitler immigrating to Texas thus making the Nazi Party wear pink uniforms (:wtf:) to Walt Disney being president-for-life of a Nazi-allied California to the constant Libertarian propaganda and utterly crappy dialogue, this thing is a mess. I mean I've read some real bad alt-history, but this takes the cake.

Aaron McGuire
 
Would this be the same L. Neil Smith who wrote the horrid Lando Calrissian trilogy back in '83-84? If so, I have no desire to read anything else of his.
 
I seen this schlock before. From the patently absurd idea of Adolf Hitler immigrating to Texas thus making the Nazi Party wear pink uniforms (:wtf:) to Walt Disney being president-for-life of a Nazi-allied California to the constant Libertarian propaganda and utterly crappy dialogue, this thing is a mess. I mean I've read some real bad alt-history, but this takes the cake.

Aaron McGuire
:wtf::scream: Is that seriously stuff that happens in the comics?
 
well, Hitler does emmigrate to Texas, thus not becoming Der Fuhrer, but the Brits run the Third-and-a-half Reich (WTF?) and some Nazi dude is seen wearing pink. and yes, Disney is President-for-life of the Nazi-allied California Republic.

the bit that offends me is that Britain would ever take over the Third Reich and become Nazified.
 
I seen this schlock before. From the patently absurd idea of Adolf Hitler immigrating to Texas thus making the Nazi Party wear pink uniforms (:wtf:) to Walt Disney being president-for-life of a Nazi-allied California to the constant Libertarian propaganda and utterly crappy dialogue, this thing is a mess. I mean I've read some real bad alt-history, but this takes the cake.

Aaron McGuire
:wtf::scream: Is that seriously stuff that happens in the comics?

Oh yeah. For real. This guy is a total nutter.

Aaron McGuire
 
I wouldn't say that libertarianism is L. Neil Smith's "hidden agenda" -- he started the newsletter The Libertarian Enterprise, after all. His Probability Broach novels posit an alternate history where the Constitution failed and the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation, which gave the federal government zero power. (I seem to recall that the history also turned on George Washington's execution as a traitor, but I could be mistaken.)

The point of divergence in Smith's work is that his version of the Constitution contains one word that doesn't appear in ours ('...derive their just power from the unanimous consent of the governed...'). Washington's execution was a result of the alternate timeline that led from this.

And I agree, this kind of libertarian wet dream is not enjoyable reading material. I didn't care for it at all. (Ironically, I agree with *some* of what this party says, but I find Libertarians in general to be arrogant and self-absorbed and that really turned me off.)
 
The point of divergence in Smith's work is that his version of the Constitution contains one word that doesn't appear in ours ('...derive their just power from the unanimous consent of the governed...'). Washington's execution was a result of the alternate timeline that led from this.

Actually that's from the Declaration of Independence. In Smith's work, the Constitution is never ratified at all, and the US is governed by the Articles of Confederation.

I like the idea that something so small as a choice of words could make such a huge difference (as folks will see when Places of Exile comes out next month), but this particular idea is kind of silly. I can't believe Thomas Jefferson would've been so irrational as to think that the unanimous consent of a population would ever be attainable. Indeed, the context of the line makes it even more unbelievable. Jefferson wrote that one of the truths held to be self-evident was "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." That phrasing suggests not a proposal for how things ought to be done, but a statement of general practice. And obviously no government in Jefferson's past or present had ever had unanimous consent.

So Smith snuck in a ringer here -- a totally implausible alteration that only served to force the outcome he wanted. Also, I doubt that the letter of the Declaration would ever have been considered so binding on the nation that followed; if it were, then slavery would've been abolished immediately because "all men are created equal."
 
Last edited:
that's something that i've noticed and never understood.

that guff about all men are created equal and then you get a century of slavery and damn near 2 centuries of inequality in the genders. AND y'all STILL don't treat everyone as equal or you woulda had a woman President or a black guy or *shock, horror* an Asian President by now...


i wonder what difference it would've made if the Doctor hadn't persuaded them to add "the pursuit of happiness" to the Declaration...
 
that's something that i've noticed and never understood.

that guff about all men are created equal and then you get a century of slavery and damn near 2 centuries of inequality in the genders. AND y'all STILL don't treat everyone as equal or you woulda had a woman President or a black guy or *shock, horror* an Asian President by now...

i wonder what difference it would've made if the Doctor hadn't persuaded them to add "the pursuit of happiness" to the Declaration...

Not much difference. The Declaration isn't the law of the land, it's a political tract written to explain to the civilized world why America was refusing to remain a British colony and was willing to go to war over it -- to show that it wasn't a bunch of unruly frontier primitives needing to be put down, but a nation of civilized, ethical people fighting for a righteous cause. It was a declaration of principles, but the framers of the Constitution (which is the law of the land) didn't follow it to the letter.

There was also the fact that in the minds of white landowning men at the time, the word "men" pretty much implied white landowning men. Thomas Jefferson himself, the man who wrote that all men are created equal, owned slaves. Also, "all men are created equal" pretty much fails to address the status of women.
 
Dear Mr. Roddenberry:

I have been given to understand that you are a promising young aviator there in the Republic of California, although you were born in El Paso, and that your talents may be unappreciated or going to waste there. The Texas Air Militia is looking for a few good men to fly their older fighters and their new jets, when they are delivered.

If you were to come home to the Bluebonnet Republic, I believe I could offer you rather more in the way of remuneration than you are currently receiving, a less-crowded field of endeavor, and a future with more possibilities. Please let me know if this notion interests you and I will cable you the expenses for travel and lodging so you and the Air Militia can see how you like each other.

Very sincerely yours,

Darlington Smedley Butler
President, Federated States of Texas

P.S. Allow me to remind you that Texas requires by law, in the interest of public safety, that you carry a firearm at all times. Freedom and social democracy in this great republic depend on those of us who are willing to pull their own weight with regard to keeping the peace.

Personally, I carry a .45 because nobody makes a .46.
 
^I believe the conceit of the series is that in its alternate history, Texas has expanded to incorporate New Mexico and other states.
 
P.S. Allow me to remind you that Texas requires by law, in the interest of public safety, that you carry a firearm at all times. Freedom and social democracy in this great republic depend on those of us who are willing to pull their own weight with regard to keeping the peace.

Something that just occurred to me the other day, and that this reminded me of. Isn't the idea that "a well-armed society is a polite society" just crowd-sourcing the Police State? I mean, I'm not going to be any less oppressed if the assholes and thugs who are leaning on me are wearing civvies instead of well-tailored uniforms.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top