NationStates Jolt Archive


Bigotry & Hatred: Is one side justified? (Fictional, not Factual)

Klonor
18-08-2005, 00:19
This discussion is about the Isaac Asimov novel Pebble in the Sky.

My question: Who is right, the Earthmen or the Outsiders?

By "who is right" I mean which of the two is justified in their intense hatred and bigotry. I know bigotry is never right, but it is sometimes justified (the two are not mutually exclusive). So, Earthmen or Outsiders?

Pebble in the Sky synopsis:

The future. The distant future. The future so distant that humanity has spread across the galaxy and it has been forgotten that Earth is the original human homeworld. In fact, Earth is a radioactive wasteland that can barely support a few million people (20 million to be exact) and is regarded as the bastard planet of the Galaxy.

Earth is run by the Society of the Ancients, a religous cult (No word besides 'cult' applies here) which believes that Earth is humanities homeworld (Which they are right about) and the rightful ruler of the Galaxy. Along with this comes the belief that Earthmen (even the women are regarded as Earthmen) are superior to the other people of the Galaxy and that it is their destiny to rule it all. Unfortunately, the rest of the Galaxy isn't that willing to be ruled by what is the futures equivelant of a third world country.

The Galactic Empire, a galaxy spanning nation which includes every planet in the known Universe (That'd be some 200 million planets totaling some quadrillion people), rules Earth and is stuck between a rock and a hard place (if that expression means what I think it does, nobody has ever actually explained it to me). Earth has rebelled three times in the past 200 years and has been squashed (horribly) each time. Each rebellion is followed by purges and killings and huge upsets. However, the GE is a generally benevolent nation (The word "Empire" gives it an unearned evil sound) and has as yet resisted from just blowing up the entire planet (which it could easily do and not miss it at all) and being rid of a constant nuiscance. Unfortunately, the people of Earth don't really see the benevolence (there isn't much, but there is some) and resent the Empire for their domination of what they believe to be the rightful King of the Universe.

So, the two sides hate each other. The Earthmen hate the Outsiders (their name for non-Earthers) for their domination and the Outsiders hate the Earthmen for their beliefs of superiority and obvious hatred/physical rebellion. Actually, only the Outsiders who actually know of Earth hate it (Let's face it, Earth is just so insignificant that it's not even that well known). This isn't like modern day racism and bigotry, where some people are racist and some some peoply aren't, this is Galaxy wide. Except for an extreme minority (Those being people who are knowledgeable of the others, Outsiders who know of Earths past and Earthmen who have been educated in the Galactic view) the hatred is universal.

Which side is justified in their hatred? The Earthmen have been subjugated and conquered, restricted from emigrating to other planets where there isn't radioactivity and prevented from transferring new topsoil from other planets to replace the toxic soil. Yet the Outsiders have put much effort into bringing Earth up to the standards of the rest of the Galaxy and have received nothing except blind hatred and violence in return. Complicated, isn't it?
Vegas-Rex
18-08-2005, 00:33
Which side is justified in their hatred? The Earthmen have been subjugated and conquered, restricted from emigrating to other planets where there isn't radioactivity and prevented from transferring new topsoil from other planets to replace the toxic soil. Yet the Outsiders have put much effort into bringing Earth up to the standards of the rest of the Galaxy and have received nothing except blind hatred and violence in return. Complicated, isn't it?

Is is just me, or is there a contradiction here?
Klonor
18-08-2005, 02:28
Yeah, that's a pretty good contradiction.

I'm speaking from the point of view of each side, from the Outsiders point of view they are raising the Earthmen out of strife. Earth has been granted official membership in the Empire, its citizens are Imperial Citizens, they have all the rights of every other citizen, etc. (It should be noted this is only in existence in the laws, in reality the Outsider military and government on Earth treats them like so many rabid dogs)
Klonor
18-08-2005, 02:32
A good example of the Earth/Galaxy conflict is this:

The Imperial Seal is required, by law, to be raised in the local seat of government in every planet in the Empire. The Earthmen, viewing Earth as the rightful ruler of the galaxy, do not want the Outsider symbol in their planetary capital. So, the second that symbol is put on display, there come riots and rebellions. Thousands die (It would be millions, but there simply aren't enough Earthmen for that to happen) and the Emperor (Who is, apparently, slightly insane) states that he doesn't care if they have to put every single Earthman to death, that seal stays up. Thankfully that Emperor is assassinated after a reign of only two years and the one who follows sees the folly of killing an entire planets population over a stupid piece of decoration and says that it'd be okay to not have that seal in that one planet.

Earth, out of all the millions of planets in the Empire, is the only planet to not have the Imperial Seal in its seat of local government.

Here we see unwarranted violence and a disturbing amount of fanaticism from the Earthmen, and we also see a complete lack of caring for the suffering and deaths of Earths inhabitants on the part of the Empire. Bad stuff all around.
Eichen
18-08-2005, 02:58
This reminds me of the story about the two thieves. They're suspected, but nothing much is known by the police. While the thieves are being interviewed, they're each told that their partner-in-crime is about to confess.
The cops hint that the first to spit the truth is going to receive a generous deal.
If one confesses and the other doesn't, the one without the formal confession will wind up doing hard time.
Both criminals want the "deal", and give full confessions. Both go to prison.

It's a fast race to the bottom. Nobody benefits, and both sides are miserable.
Classic lose-lose situation.