I have always been fascinated by alternate history – fiction that imagines what would have happened and where we would be today if some critical past event had gone differently. What if the Axis had won World War II? What if the Pope had had a more favourable view towards Henry VIII’s petition for annulment? The past is now fixed and unchangeable, yet a small shift in the past could have led to a totally different world today.
Alternative histories aren’t just fun though – they can provide a powerful tool for exploring what difference was made by a particular political decision.
Is history progressive?
Many alternative histories in which the South won the American Civil War have assumed that the end of slavery was inevitable anyways. This is a politically important speculation – if the South would have ended slavery shortly after the 1860s anyways, then one might conclude that the South was not that bad and that so-called “Northern aggression” was not justified.
This speculation also reflects a “progressive” view of history – a view which supposes that the advance of justice and therefore the end of slavery was inevitable, regardless of the particular decisions or calculations made by particular people in the past.
I personally find it a bit implausible to suppose that the South would voluntarily give up an institution that they had just fought to preserve or to presume that slavery was necessarily doomed when it had survived so long. But it is easy to understand how these suppositions had and have political meaning for those wishing to advance a particular view of the South and of history.
The idea of alternative history is not just important when it is invoked explicitly. So many claims about the progress of countries or the impact of certain policies implicitly invoke an alternative history as well.
The history of China and Taiwan
When the Chinese government claims, for example, to have lifted millions of people out of poverty, we are implicitly being asked to evaluate that claim against an alternative history in which China is run by a different government, and then compare the performance of that imagined different government to the performance of the actual government.
This exercise of evaluating the impact of political decisions against the benchmark of “what could have been” is generally highly speculative – but there is a case where it is not.
The Chinese civil war was won by the communists, whose subsequent government has become known as the People’s Republic of China (PRC). As a result of their victory, they got to go on and try to shape China as they saw fit. But relatively uniquely in that case, the losers of that civil war also got to put their ideas into practice by building the Republic of China on the island of Taiwan.
The alternative history of Taiwan
Both sides agreed for a long time that there was only one China, but each had a different conception of what that was. Both societies changed over time, but in ways that reflected that radical point of divergence. Taiwan is, in that sense, a living and breathing alternative history. It is China without communism – what China would have been if the civil war had gone differently.
And so Taiwan and its situation are particularly important – not just because we should be concerned about the safety and welfare of 24 million free people, but because Taiwan’s very existence lifts the veil on what the People’s Republic of China is, on what China could have been, and on what China could still be.
The Communist Party of China’s claim to legitimacy depends on its own analysis of the historic alternatives. Their story is that the Communist Party is China’s agent of economic development, of order, and of the reversal of national shame. Without it, they would like to suppose, China would be economically undeveloped, disorderly, and dominated by foreign powers. They suppose that the only available alternative history without communism is a poor and dark one – and so their rule is necessary, just, and beneficent.
An embarrassment for communist China
It is, then, deeply embarrassing for the PRC that one can go and see a more fulsome manifestation of China’s potential – a living breathing alternative history for Chinese people, marked by prosperity, beauty, and joy, characterized by freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. (Not that it’s the most important marker, but GDP per capita is about 2.5 times higher in Taiwan).
Any even moderately open-minded person from the mainland who spends a few days in the Republic of China (Taiwan) will be able to see that the Communist Party is not propelling the Chinese people forward – rather, it is holding them back. Any Westerner who harbours romantic notions about communism in China should see the alternative to realize how much more would have been possible on the mainland without communism. Most alternative histories are only found in novels and films, but this one is alive to see.
The PRC’s increasingly aggressive posture towards Taiwan demonstrates the insecurity of communist officials. Their rule lacks any credible legitimacy other than demonstrably false alternative history. Taiwan’s existence and success is proof of their failures, and a stark reminder to those on the mainland of what could still be achieved by a free China. That is the biggest reason why they see Taiwan as a threat.
The past is fixed and unchangeable, but the future trajectory is very much dependent on what we do at this critical point in China’s history. Will China learn from Taiwan’s successes, or will its rulers go further to snuff out the clearest evidence of their failures?
Want to help us grow? Here's what you can do!
Disgraced Prince Andrew will still hold appointments in Canadian military
Despite many organizations and institutions distancing themselves from a disgraced Prince Andrew after his disastrous interview with the BBC–discussing his relationship with the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein–the National Post reported he will still keep his Canadian military appointments.
The step away from public life may come as no surprise, however, the Prince maintains certain roles and appointments that are somewhat tricky to get out of.
“As is the custom, the Duke of York holds honorary title of Colonel-in-Chief of The Princess of Louise Fusiliers, The Royal Highland Fusiliers of Canada and Queen’s York Rangers,” Department of National Defence (DND) specialist Jessice Lamirande to the National Post.
The National Post questioned the DND for a week before they were even willing to confirm just what roles the now disgraced Prince held.
The Post Millennial reached out to several institutions and offices, including the Governor General’s, to see if they were severing ties with Prince Andrew. None of them responded.
The questions surrounding Prince Andrew’s removal from these appointments have left the Canadian Armed Forces and the government puzzled.
“This has never happened before,” said one government source to the National Post.
A Royal spokesperson previously released a statement that he would be stepping away from public duties: “The Duke has stepped back for the time being and will not be undertaking any public duties on behalf of his Patronages or associations.”
This statement has put the Canadian military in a quagmire. The role of Colonel-in-Chief is not just a symbolic one, it does involve some active duties. If the Canadian government wanted to rescind Prince Andrew’s appointments themselves, there is no set of procedures in place that would even necessarily allow them to do so. The various regiments of the Commonwealth can only be appointed a Colonel-in-Chief by the Queen herself, and once appointed there is an expectation to fulfill role until death or a formal retirement from public life.
“The position of Colonel-in Chief is a symbol of a direct relationship between the Sovereign and the members of that regiment,” said Richard Berthelsen, who specializes in the Crown’s relationship to Canada. “It’s not like a patronage. It has a much deeper meaning. It is something that is official and is recognized in the Canadian Forces as having significant importance to history and heritage of that unit.”
“There is nothing stopping a prime minister from making a recommendation, a very strong recommendation, I suppose,” Toffoli told the National Post earlier this week.
The November BBC interview that the Duke of York was hoping would clear his name was generally considered a disaster, leaving many people and organizations scrambling to cut ties with the Prince. Prince Andrew’s own mother, Queen Elizabeth II, even went so far as to cancel her son’s upcoming 60th birthday party.
Want to help us grow? Here's what you can do!
BREAKING: Reports of suicide at Alberta Legislature, buildings on lockdown
According to a source on the scene, there has been a suicide at the Alberta Legislature. The interruption has prompted the Legislature to be delayed, as the Legislature buildings are on lockdown.
“I hate to interrupt, however there is an issue that is important to the assembly,” said speaker Nathan Cooper said to the assembly after being notified by security. “I’d just like to take a five-minute recess. If both members of the assembly want to pop into their respective lounges, I’d be happy to provide an update in a moment.”
Members of the assembly left the chamber at 3:15 p.m, according to a source.
According to a source on the scene, a suicide took place on the steps of The Legislative Assembly of Alberta in Edmonton.
“Both buildings are in lockdown right now. Nobody can come in or out,” said the anonymous source on the scene.
The weapon used is currently unknown.
This is a breaking news article and will be updated.
Want to help us grow? Here's what you can do!
Georgetown Prof who called for “miserable deaths” of white men off the hook
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has launched a Title IX investigation against Georgetown University to formally determine if the school’s women-only programs violate Title IX. The OCR, however, has declined to look into the feminist professor whose tweet about Brett Kavanaugh triggered the investigation in the first place.
Title IX—a federal law that threatens to revoke funding for schools found guilty of discriminating “on the basis of sex”—was initially implemented in 1972 to fight for women’s equality in U.S. universities.
Over the past few years, advocates for boys and men have begun challenging the law’s precedents to fight for more resources for male college students. Since 56% of college students are now women, some are arguing that young men are neglected.
Kursat Pekgoz, 31, is one of the key activists who pioneered this approach. In early 2018, Pekgoz filed a federal complaint against the University of Southern California, alleging that USC’s female-only programs discriminate against men.
The complaint—initially dismissed by the San Francisco Office—was reinstated upon Pekgoz’s appeal to the U.S. federal government. This precedent inspired a wave of activism across the nation.
During the Brett Kavanaugh hearing in Sept. 2018, Georgetown Professor C. Christine Fair tweeted that white men who support Kavanaugh deserve “miserable deaths.” Because of this, Pekgoz later wrote the Title IX complaint against Georgetown.
“Look at all the entitled white men justifying a serial rapist’s arrogated entitlement,” tweeted Fair. “All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine.”
Fair’s comments caught Pekgoz’s attention.
“She cannot be expected to teach her male students in a fair manner, and her presence creates a hostile environment against young male students,” Pekgoz wrote in his missive to OCR.
Georgetown has at least 18 programs that violate Title IX, he alleged.
“Georgetown has a very large number of female-only programs, even though women are the majority of students at Georgetown. Christine Fair’s comments supplied an additional incentive to write the complaint,” Pekgoz said by phone Friday.
According to an October 2019 letter, the OCR agreed to investigate numerous Georgetown programs and scholarships to determine if they truly do violate Title IX.
These include the school’s policy of affirmative action hiring for women, seven programs that exclude men, and numerous opportunities and scholarship programs that exclude men, according to the OCR.
But Pekgoz says the letter highlights the OCR’s “hypocrisy.”
Pekgoz notes that the OCR declined to investigate Georgetown’s Women’s Studies Department, based on the claim that Title IX does not allow the OCR to review curricula.
However, the OCR has previously interfered with curricular materials under Title IX before, Pekgoz says. The OCR is also “currently micromanaging” the curricular materials of Middle Eastern Studies under Title VI, a very similar law, Pekgoz argued.
The OCR also declined to investigate Professor Fair, whose tweets triggered the complaint.
“The letter does mention Professor Fair, even though she called for the mass-murder of white men and the desecration of their bodies. OCR’s bureaucrats would have reacted with swift retribution if Fair called for mass-violence against any other ethnic class such as Blacks, Muslims, or Jews” Pekgoz told The Post Millennial.
As I previously reported, Professor Fair also ran a Tumblr blog to doxx men who sent her hate mail. She made 11 full-on doxxing posts (which included full names, addresses, and phone numbers), and hundreds of other partial doxxing posts.
Tumblr de-platformed Fair soon after, citing a violation of the site’s community guidlines against terrorism and harassment. But after Georgetown gave her paid leave for a few months, Professor Fair has resumed teaching at the school.
While Pekgoz wrote the Title IX complaint itself, the National Coalition For Men (NCFM) took charge of filing the complaint against Georgetown University and answering follow-up questions from the OCR.
Harry Crouch, President of NCFM, said that he and his team are hopeful.
“It took a year almost to the day to get a response, but we are very excited that the OCR will investigate significant parts of our complaint. We are hopeful they will rule in our favour, and consequently, Georgetown will become much more male-friendly,” he said.
“We would like to thank Kursat Pekgoz for doing the initial research and draft of this complaint. … We are excited that OCR found sufficient substance to investigate many of our concerns,” he added.
Marc Angelucci—an attorney and NCFM board member—told TPM that the OCR is taking steps in the right direction.
“It’s about time the Department of Education finally looks at discrimination against men. Title IX is not gender-specific. It applies to men too. But the last administration didn’t seem to think so. All we want is fairness and justice,” Angelucci told TPM.
Now that some Georgetown programs are under investigation, it’ll likely take a few months to a year for the OCR to reach a verdict.
Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @Toni_Airaksinen.
Want to help us grow? Here's what you can do!
Twenty-seven percent more employed Ontarians accessing food banks
The number of Ontario residents requiring food banks while employed has significantly increased over the last three years.
According to a new report by Feed Ontario, formerly the Ontario Association of Food Banks, there has been a 27 percent increase in the number of individuals with employment income accessing food banks over the last three years.
This includes one in every ten Ontarians who have insufficient income to afford a basic standard of living.
The 2019 Hunger Report reveals that more than five hundred thousand individuals accessed a food bank last year, visiting more than three million times. The report furthermore found a growing trend where the number of individuals with employment income still requiring food banks has increased.
“Over the last three years, Ontario’s food banks have seen a 27 percent increase in the number of adults with employment income accessing their services,” says Carolyn Stewart, Executive Director of Feed Ontario. “This tells us that, while these individuals are working in a full or part-time position, they have not been able to secure sufficient income to afford all of their basic necessities each month, like rent, heat, hydro, or food.”
Provincially, Feed Ontario is calling on the Ford government to make significant improvements to Ontario’s social assistance programs, including increases to social assistance rates, an inclusive definition of ‘disability’ under the Ontario Disability Support Program, and the development of a portable housing benefit.
“Feed Ontario believes that its vision of ending poverty and hunger is shared by all levels of government, and that there has never been a greater need for collective action than there is today,” says Stewart. “Through improvements to Ontario’s social assistance programs and government benefits, investments in affordable housing, and the development of quality employment opportunities for Ontarians, we believe that we can reduce poverty while building a future where no one goes hungry.”
Social Media