I'll have to pick that up! You're the second person who's told me about it. I've been holding off because I wasn't that into his other books I read, but the Black Death might be more fun than mysterious ice monoliths. Some other alt-history I've read picks up instead on a different fate for the Roman Empire. L. Sprague de Camp's Lest Darkness Fall has a modern archeologist dude end up in the 6th century and, because he is Modern, is naturally able to invent printing presses, telegraphs, and every other gadget you could want as well as being just better in every way. They were less subtle about these things in 1938 sometimes. That inspired the much-later Harry Turtledove Agent of Byzantium, which is more a few linked novellas than a novel, but does not involve time-traveling ubermensch. The divergence in this history (centuries before the action starts) is that Mohammed converted to Christianity and became a popular saint... I'm not sure whether that would actually have worked as advertised, but again, no time-traveling ubermensch! I think Robert Silverberg's Roma Eterna is the same idea, but the prologue was so awful I stopped there. At least Climb the Wind is still decent alt-history despite its flaws.
Or the Haitian Revolution, which along with the Seminole Wars gets buried with all the things that freaked white Southern planters out. You only get to mention small failed revolts, preferably by madmen with almost no following. If you leave that out, any further interaction with Haiti isn't going to get in either, because it might be related somehow or make us look bad. Also, even if South Carolina's declaration of secession explicitly said slavery was a major factor, you have to try to paper that over with talk about "economics" and "states' rights" while pretending they didn't mean the economics of slavery and states' rights to designate some people as property. (Less so in history classes in northern states, but still a bit.)
I think the only thing US students ever learn about Australian history is a) convicts! and b) Gallipoli, and the latter only because of the movie. Maybe there's some kind of deal - we'll pretend you weren't in Vietnam (because that would make it not all about us) if you will?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-12 07:17 pm (UTC)Or the Haitian Revolution, which along with the Seminole Wars gets buried with all the things that freaked white Southern planters out. You only get to mention small failed revolts, preferably by madmen with almost no following. If you leave that out, any further interaction with Haiti isn't going to get in either, because it might be related somehow or make us look bad. Also, even if South Carolina's declaration of secession explicitly said slavery was a major factor, you have to try to paper that over with talk about "economics" and "states' rights" while pretending they didn't mean the economics of slavery and states' rights to designate some people as property. (Less so in history classes in northern states, but still a bit.)
I think the only thing US students ever learn about Australian history is a) convicts! and b) Gallipoli, and the latter only because of the movie. Maybe there's some kind of deal - we'll pretend you weren't in Vietnam (because that would make it not all about us) if you will?
I'd read that essay.