5. Are there any subjects which require special care? (soc.history.what-if)
Description
This article is from the soc.history.what-if FAQ, by Anthony Mayer anthonyemayer@yahoo.co.uk with numerous contributions by others.
5. Are there any subjects which require special care? (soc.history.what-if)
Almost any topic can unexpectedly rouse tempers; the Ban on Politics
exists because of sad experience. However, even perfectly on-topic
discussions of alternative history can be inflammatory when contrary
beliefs, political or otherwise, are involved. The record in SHWI
indicates that the following subjects are particularly prone to cause
problems:
5.a Conflicting Patriotisms
SHWI is an international newsgroup. Please bear this in mind when posting
on subjects that may easily arouse strong opinions. Courtesy towards
other nationalities when touching on matters that may reflect deep seated
values and patriotisms should be a matter of course. This is as true for
historical issues as more contemporary concerns. For example, arguments
about who "really" won the War of 1812 will produce nothing but wasted
bandwidth and bruised feelings. SHWI has also suffered from the Europe vs
US argument on more than one occasion, and no one would like to see it
repeated. (Prodding touchy patriots on purpose is a type of troll.
Don't.)
5.b WIs concerning very recent events
Current affairs are not historical. Extremely recent events are often
too fresh for genuine historical analysis, and posts discussing "what-if
so-and-so (which occurred yesterday) had not happened?" are rarely
valuable. While most posters will no doubt be interested in recent and
current affairs, there is often little that can be said on such a
subject that does not involve contemporary politics or speculation about
the future. Thus posts on a very recent WI tend to stray off topic,
violating points 4.a and 4.c. above. While WIs concerning recent events
are certainly on-topic, they should be handled with great care and with
an eye to not offending other posters.
5.c WIs involving supernatural agencies
WIs that involve supernatural agencies or devices, such as time travel
and magic, are on the borders of the topic for this newsgroup. If using
such devices, be aware that many posters do not appreciate AH in such a
form, and that the purpose of the group is discussion of the
alternative history, not the discussion of the magical agency used to
aid in the creation of the alternative history.
As a matter of courtesy it is preferable to make it clear in the title
of the post that the timeline involves such deus ex machina devices.
There is no agreed method of labelling or convention with respect to
the titles of posts that feature supernatural events, though [ISOT] is
regularly used to refer to a particular literary device (see Question
7). The critical issue is clarity and courtesy. Many of the more
interesting magical scenarios can be reformulated to remove the magical
element. For example, "You wake up in the body of historical figure X,
what do you do?" could perhaps be worded as "What decisions could
historical figure X have made, that would have lead to changes Y?".
Such reformulations will make the post more attractive to a number of
readers, and often take little effort to do.
One should also be willing to accept that arguments can reach an impasse
beyond which nothing can be gained by pursuing them. A few specific topics
have long since reached the impasse stage on the newsgroup as a whole.
Besides the War of 1812, these include: who should properly be considered
Chinese (especially when the Mongols or Tibetans are brought up), the
possibility of European (meaning chiefly British) intervention in the
American Civil War, and especially the related subject of American vs.
British ironclads during that era.
Continue to:
My Books
