I've been pretty remiss about posting of late, but I'll try and get a post up at least once a week....
I completed painting another brigade of infantry (still have to mount it) while watching the football games on Sunday, always fun to watch the Raiders lose, Seahawks won a yawner so I checked in on the Patriots-Steelers game which the Patriots won in a yawner, and Sunday Night Football's Indy-Panthers game was a yawner win for Indy....so painting.
I also finished reading Harry Turtledove's Guns of the South so I am ready to start planning for the Guns of the South scenario for RadCon. Turtledove is next year's Writer Guest of Honor. This begs the question "How do you represent a brigade of ACW infantry toting AK-47's in Hordes of the Things?" I think I will pose the question on the HOTT list. That batch of creative thinkers will surely have 42 answers.....
Kim
My wife insists I am the oldest 14 year old in the world. My chronological age is considerably in excess of that. She also says she has three children, the one she married and the two she bore. I was 35 when we married, my oldest (a daughter) is 14. You can approximate my age if you want to do the math (Eeep!!! She's even older now), but it won't be right.... ;o) If you wonder how the political stuff fits, my formative political experiences were when I was, you guessed it, fourteen.
Latest Miniatures
Space:1889 Hill Martians
2 comments:
Yawn-er??? That game was FULL of excitement. Five interceptions, 3 sacks...a safety...What more could you want from a game?
I enjoyed (from a story perspective) Guns of the South, but I thought that the "subtext" was a bit far-fetched. As I remember Mr. Turtledove seemed to buy into the revisionist history model that the Civil War was somehow not about slavery, but instead was about "State's rights." I'm not sure where you are in the book so I won't spoil the ending, but I found the ending to be more than a bit unlikely.
I am not a Civil War historian like I know that you and many of your friends are. However, I read more than a few Civil War ear Supreme Court cases and my belief is that while there were other issues to fight over, the flash-point was slavery.
One-sidedness does not an exciting game make.... It was never close.
I find time-travel storylines to be far fetched in general, and I really fail to grasp the notion of modern day Afrikaaner fanatics using one to try to change the results of the American Civil War to give themselves another nation with the "right ideas" about blacks in the Twentieth Century. Then there is the logistics question of where did they find the money to buy hundreds of thousands of AK-47's without some very serious questions being asked by some very serious people. And the whole other logistics question of how they got it all through a single portal in a reasonable amount of time. Then there's the ammunition supply to go with it....
But I really have no trouble with the premise that even if the South won the Civil War that eventually they would have to give up slavery. Jim Crow was a subtle response. Absent an imposed emancipation, I don't think it would have been invented in the South, though the North might have found it expedient. The South would have faced the choice of freeing its slaves or spending inordinate amounts of its human capital suppressing the rebellion of another substantial portion of its human capital. In the end, not profitable and you either become a second class state or disintegrate into anarchy....or find another solution. It is not at all unlikely that Lee would have led such a movement. I thought Forrest's epiphany is improbable though true to the tale.
Are you gonna come over for RadCon? It would make for a lively discussion. To which SCOTUS decisions do you refer?
Kim
Post a Comment