Oh, well, in that case, oof... fine, it's the stand-in for Amerikkka . Now, that I think of it, why is it revolutionary in the place? I mean, usually, in settler colonies, especially of 380 years ago
They usually pacify the proletariat by giving them the potential to be petty-bourgeois settler-colonial propetarians, through expropriation and disenfranchisement of the indigenous, but I haven't heard of such 'liberatarian' movement in there, unlike a la Australia, Argentina, or Amerikkka
By the way, why historically is there an Occidental monarch there? I don't see it as indigenous to the pre-colonial era nor welcome in such a settler colony
I'm not totally convinced Revachol is in their world's Amerikkka either, ha. It just has some overlaps in that it is a settler colony and has a major cosmopolitan metropolis and is a locus for Disco and blue jeans so on. It is probably a mixture of things.
They usually pacify the proletariat by giving them the potential to be petty-bourgeois settler-colonial propetarians, through expropriation and disenfranchisement of the indigenous, but I haven't heard of such 'liberatarian' movement in there, unlike a la Australia, Argentina, or Amerikkka
The lack of mentioning an indigenous people in Le Caillou is consistent with this. Their mythology holds that it did not have people living on it when settlers arrived. Allegedly people lived there long before they arrived, using "primitive" tools. It is possinle that this is an unreliable narration.
If there were really no people, though, that might have different dynamics. Kicking the can down the road with land would be there, providing that petty bourgeois character, but it would not require genocidal racism.
Though I think it makes very little sense that there would have been no people living there already. I think it is more likely that the authors are being poetic by treating it like an afterthought, a possibility, something that maybe happened but nobody remembers. It could be an oversight but I bet not.
By the way, why historically is there an Occidental monarch there? I don't see it as indigenous to the pre-colonial era nor welcome in such a settler colony
Revachol existed as a parallel to revolutionary France (and other European countries) for the purposes of much of the narrative. Monarchists being deposed with liberals carrying out their own revolution and capitalist restoration. The order isn't an exact parallel but the monarchist vs. liberal vs. commie opposition is maintained.
Regarding the monarchy he was technically a suzerain, beholden to the Occidental interests. But as Revachol grew in power, the suzerain pushed for independence. Communist revolution against the suzerain succeeded but the Occidental imperialists used the opportunity for capitalist restoration and to imperialize Revachol by bombing and killing the communists.
Oh, well, in that case, oof... fine, it's the stand-in for Amerikkka
. Now, that I think of it, why is it revolutionary in the place? I mean, usually, in settler colonies, especially of 380 years ago
They usually pacify the proletariat by giving them the potential to be petty-bourgeois settler-colonial propetarians, through expropriation and disenfranchisement of the indigenous, but I haven't heard of such 'liberatarian' movement in there, unlike a la Australia, Argentina, or Amerikkka
By the way, why historically is there an Occidental monarch there? I don't see it as indigenous to the pre-colonial era nor welcome in such a settler colony
Edit: maybe a bit of Cuba's experience mixed in?
I'm not totally convinced Revachol is in their world's Amerikkka either, ha. It just has some overlaps in that it is a settler colony and has a major cosmopolitan metropolis and is a locus for Disco and blue jeans so on. It is probably a mixture of things.
The lack of mentioning an indigenous people in Le Caillou is consistent with this. Their mythology holds that it did not have people living on it when settlers arrived. Allegedly people lived there long before they arrived, using "primitive" tools. It is possinle that this is an unreliable narration.
If there were really no people, though, that might have different dynamics. Kicking the can down the road with land would be there, providing that petty bourgeois character, but it would not require genocidal racism.
Though I think it makes very little sense that there would have been no people living there already. I think it is more likely that the authors are being poetic by treating it like an afterthought, a possibility, something that maybe happened but nobody remembers. It could be an oversight but I bet not.
Revachol existed as a parallel to revolutionary France (and other European countries) for the purposes of much of the narrative. Monarchists being deposed with liberals carrying out their own revolution and capitalist restoration. The order isn't an exact parallel but the monarchist vs. liberal vs. commie opposition is maintained.
Regarding the monarchy he was technically a suzerain, beholden to the Occidental interests. But as Revachol grew in power, the suzerain pushed for independence. Communist revolution against the suzerain succeeded but the Occidental imperialists used the opportunity for capitalist restoration and to imperialize Revachol by bombing and killing the communists.