If it Had happened Otherwise.
Science-Fiction is far and away my favourite form of fiction. Though I don’t read it exclusively I do read it extensively and have done so for… well, many years. After all this time I can still be transported by a sense of wonder. I love it.
One of my favourite sub-genres is Alternate History. These are stories based on the premise that things might have turned out differently if what we regard as an historical ‘event’ had been different. Say for instance that the Confederacy had won at Gettysburg (that’s a particular favourite for authors) or if the assassination attempt against Hitler had been successful – just how would things have turned out? For better or worse? Of course this brings out the interesting and deeper philosophical question: Could things have turned out differently? Could the arrow that is reputed to have killed King Harold at the Battle of Hastings have missed? Could he have led his troops to victory over William of Normandy and changed forever the course of Western history? Is such a thing possible? It certainly seems so.
There are even scientific theories that postulate an idea of multiple universes where every event creates a separate reality. Even extremely trivial events hive off entirely different universes. In one there is a single grain of sand on a beach in California in a slightly different location. Everything else is identical. You could pass between universes on a daily basis and you’d never know – which might explain things like déjà vu and much else besides. But what, if anything, is the point I’m trying to make here? It’s this:
It follows that if the past could have been different, and in some cases quite radically different, then the future can be different too. It means that there is no all encompassing design, no tide of history or historical imperative. There is no fate. God does not have a plan on either a large scale or a small one. There is no pre-determination. Nothing is fixed. We are not the pawns or victims of the whims of destiny. We have at least a modicum of control and influence over events. Imagine for a moment that you where the person who caused Hitler to move far enough away from the bomb placed under his table thereby saving his life. You certainly didn’t intend to do it, but your simple action changed world history. What simple actions do we do everyday that ripple through time? You meet a friend on a street corner and pass a few minutes catching up. In a slightly different universe you where running late and missed him only to hear later that he had been hit by a car and was in hospital or worse. That simple action of meeting a friend changed or maybe saved his life.
Personally I find this idea a little frightening, somewhat humbling but most of all liberating. Whilst we have no one else to blame for how our lives turn out we also have the power to change things. Remember - nothing is fixed. We are not trapped in our jobs or our relationships. We are free to make things different, both personally and on a much larger scale. What we do makes a difference. Our actions can lead to real change and we can accomplish great things. Remember the phrase ‘For want of a nail’? Imagine if you could provide that nail, so the message got through and the battle was won. All you have to do is provide a nail
10 comments:
Ah, but many social historians claim that individuals are completely irrelevant & the events would have taken place exactly the same, but with a different figurehead. So if Hitler had been run over aged 8 & died, WW2 would have still happened at the same time, with the same consequences, but under a different Furer (sp?)
God/fate/sinlge time line, call it what you will, it basically says we can't change anything major - just our own individual existance.
I'd like to see the proof of that proposition... because it doesn't make much sense to me.
Well, like all theories - it makes sense to a certain extent. I do agree that events are dependant on the times - and the society.
The one that's been thrown in my face a few times is the age of empires. If Queen Liz 1 had done the normal thing and married (say Philip of Spain), the chances are, England would have still joined the race for new lands, created a world wide empire, instigated an enormous naval force, and populated the new world. Those actions were all dictated by the social context of the times, not by the individual leader.
Which is all probably true.
But....
What kind of colonies they would have been, the religious & cultural ramifications, and the social implications of (I assume) having an assured line of succession are some of the many things that would have led to massive differences by now. I tend to believe in the "ripple" effect - a small difference then = an enormous difference now - although not down to the butterfly wings:-)
ck - awesome post. and very inspiring!
mrs. a - you also are right, to a point. certain movements and events carry a certain momentum of there own. However, the amount of momentum, and therefore the progress of that event or movement, is often dependant on an identifiable figure. Example, neoconservatism would never have become such a force in American politics if not for Ronald Reagan, and the good will generated by his assasination survival. Ditto for Bush and 9/11. Bush was incredably unpopular, the least popular president so early in his term in the history of the country, until the public rallied around him after 9/11. He was well on his way to losing congress at midterm. But one fateful event changed history, and gave the neo conservatives new momentum.
". . . an idea of multiple universes where every event creates a separate reality." It kind of reminds me of the Sci-Fi series "Sliders." Did you ever see that?
"For want of a Nail" incidentally is also the title of an AH classic by Robert Sobel where the British win the ARW.
Oh, and I think the "social historians" Mrs A refers to are overwhelmingly Marxists, who have a rather odd view of history as dominated by vast impersonal forces such as class struggle in which individuals are essentially irrelevant - something easily refuted by examining the careers of the likes of Mohammed, Napoleon and Hitler.
To take Hitler for example, whereas it is indeed probable that social conditions in the Weimar era would have caused a collapse into dictatorship it could as easily have been a communist one as a Fascist/Nazi one, and even in the latter case a dictator with a personality more like that of, say, Franco certainly wouldn't start a general war.
random said: To take Hitler for example, whereas it is indeed probable that social conditions in the Weimar era would have caused a collapse into dictatorship it could as easily have been a communist one as a Fascist/Nazi one, and even in the latter case a dictator with a personality more like that of, say, Franco certainly wouldn't start a general war.
Very true. Germany very nearly became a Communist state & probably would have if it wasn't for the Nazi Party which was pretty much a creation of Hitler himself. Take him out of the picture and quite possibly the whole of Western European history changes...
GWB - actually I think it's an incredibly stupid way to view history & am much more of the belief that everybodies actions do makea difference - at least in some way. Lizzy gtting married wouldn't have stopped the age of empires, but may well have drastically changed Britains role in it. Hitler's fatal fall from his bike aged 7 would not have stopped the depression of the 20's & 30's and the fall of the Wiemar republic, but it would have been a completely different collapse. The fact that I chose to leave home at 18 rather than 17 (as so nearly happened) means that an impossible no. of things in my life and 100's of other peoples lives is different to how it could have been - some of those changes will have affected many people, some will have affected "powerful" people, some will have affected people I don't even know. Millions and millions of us, all making our own choices will have an effect on how history turns out. If I didn't believe that, what would be the point in life?
VV - Sliders was a fun prog - but seriously lost it's way really quickly. It was also unable to comprhend that if one major thing changed a few hundrd/thousend years ago, there would probably be no hope of us comprehending the society at all, it would be that different from our own by now. They liked to play with the US of 2000, with just one difference (ie, no independance) without realiseing that it wouldn't BE the Us of 2000 - the dress, language, culture, society, states, politics, commerce, friends & enemies would all have been different too.
Yeah, Sliders did lose its way pretty quickly and I had that same thought myself while watching. I always questioned how so much could be the same with major things being different. But it was still fun to watch.
GWB said: ck - awesome post. and very inspiring!
Thanks. I'd been musing on that for a while & it kinda wrote itself. Now just to translate the idea into action.... [grin]
Post a Comment