• Steampunk is apparently frightened of history

    As a sometime aficionado of the Steampunk genre, I was somewhat depressed by the following article.  Somewhat very depressed, since it suggests that at least one, if not more, of the main lights in the Steampunk scene doesn’t have a clue about the history she is drawing on.  I’m going to go into some detail criticising this, since it is a good illustration of what happens when think political dogma is a substitute for facts.

    The key is the following paragraph.

    Colonialism is antithetical to everything that steampunk is. In its way, I would argue that colonialism is the quintessential anti-steampunk. Colonialism is a process that seeks to force homogeneity upon the world (to speak nothing of its racist assumptions).


    The author – the aptly named Margaret Killjoy, current editor of Steampunk magazine – prides herself on her historical acuity and still manages to produce a paragraph like that.

    To begin with, I’m going to define my terms: “colonialism” is “the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people.  “Imperialism”, sometimes used interchangeably, is the policy of seeking an Empire, “the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies”.

    The claim that colonialism “seeks to force homogeneity upon the world” is simply bunk.  Take the most famous example of colonialism, the British Empire.  It began as “globalisation with gunboats” in Niall Ferguson’s trenchant phrase: in places where British law wasn’t recognised, contracts were enforced with, as it were, contracts.  What began as a way of keeping trade routes flowing, ended as an institutional practice.  Now, in what way or form would it have been of interest to this system to “force homogeneity” on anyone?  In point of fact, it was in the best interests of the British Empire to keep local arrangements in place, since they offered the most cost-effective way of establishing control.  The way that India, say, was seized was through canny manipulation of various local interests, all of whom wanted to use the British as a way to smash their local enemies.

    This is quite important, as a similar situation is currently going on with China’s drive for Africa: Chinese corporations are typically backed by the state, and the Chinese autocracy has a vested interested in keeping the local bosses as paid enforcers as they exploit Africa’s vast wealth of resources.

    Returning to the British Empire, it is true that later on they proclaimed Kipling’s famous “White Man’s Burden”, that the holy task of the Empire was to lift the backward parts of the world up to the standard of civilisation   This is presumably what Killjoy means when she speaks of its “racist assumptions”.  However, the trouble for her is that this is, again, nothing like as simple as she thinks.

    Ibn Warraq, in Defending the West cites a modern Indian historians who argue that Kipling in particular was no racist, and his famous poem expresses the hope of being able to eventually meet the colonised as equals.  The period of the “white man’s burden” saw the eradication of Suttee in India and the Royal Navy destroy the practice of slavery.  In an ironic twist of fate, when my own Fatherland was sunk in the swamp of pagan barbarism, it was millions of young men from all over Africa and India who chose to shoulder that same burden and help liberate Germany.

    I wish Killjoy could be a little less po-faced and read Flashman.  As the Hitch writes, those books show it all:

    the British-owned slave ships, and the British vessels that put down the slave trade; the destruction of the dens of tyranny in India and Abyssinia, and the hideous vandalizing of the Summer Palace in Peking; the serf armies and pirate navies that needed crushing, and the magnificent peoples – Zulus, Sikhs, Afghans – who the British had finally to admit were unconquerable.  The Empire on which the sun never set was also the empire on which the gore never dried.

    The legacy of the British Empire is a subject of endless discussion – no less a person than Gandhi said that, the British having left, it was India’s duty to remember only the good things they brought.  Marx wrote penetratingly about the cruelties of British rule, but that it was worthwhile, as it would lay the beginnings of a modern state (n.b. Killjoy fancies herself someone with “radical” politics, but doesn’t seem to know the first thing about that tradition, a point to which I will return later).

    And this is just one of the many different forms of colonialism and imperialism.  The German scramble for Africa was out armour propre, a desire to prove that they could have an empire too.  The Belgian horrors of the Congo were due to Leopold not caring anything about its inhabitants other than as so much human fuel.  And so on.  The point isn’t to defend any of these, the point is to show that a desire to enforce “homogeneity” was nowhere to be found in colonialism and imperialism.  Such an analysis of colonialism would be completely new to Lenin (again, Killjoy doesn’t seem to know much about her own tradition) who describes it as simply a stopgap way of fending capitalism’s internal contradictions.

    I’ve specifically avoided dealing with the realities of those who were on the receiving end of European colonialism because my point is this: How on earth is someone supposed to follow provide any sort of meaningful critique of colonialism when she doesn’t even know what it was, where it came from, or what its goals were?

    She can’t.  And she can’t in a spectacular way.  There have, however, been some forms of imperialism that have devoted themselves to the creation of homogeneity, but once more the irony is at this writer’s expense.  The three examples that spring to mind are  Islamic imperialism’s drive to great a homogeneity of faith, Communist imperialism’s drive to create a civilizational homogeneity, and the Nazi drive for racial homogeneity.

    Now mark that last one.  Killjoy grandly praises Steampunk’s long, radical tradition, and heaps praise on H.G. Wells.  Yet here is Wells in his own words:

    “And how will the new republic treat the inferior races? How will it deal with the black? how will it deal with the yellow man? how will it tackle that alleged termite in the civilized woodwork, the Jew? Certainly not as races at all. It will aim to establish, and it will at last, though probably only after a second century has passed, establish a world state with a common language and a common rule. All over the world its roads, its standards, its laws, and its apparatus of control will run. It will, I have said, make the multiplication of those who fall behind a certain standard of social efficiency unpleasant and difficult… The Jew will probably lose much of his particularism, intermarry with Gentiles, and cease to be a physically distinct element in human affairs in a century or so. But much of his moral tradition will, I hope, never die. … And for the rest, those swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people, who do not come into the new needs of efficiency?
    Well, the world is a world, not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go.The whole tenor and meaning of the world, as I see it, is that they have to go. So far as they fail to develop sane, vigorous, and distinctive personalities for the great world of the future, it is their portion to die out and disappear.”

    Let it never be said that Wells exempted his own race from such treatment.  People with:

    ‘transmittable diseases, with mental disorders, with bodily deformations, the criminally insane, even the incurable alcoholic! All are to be put to death humanely—by first giving them opiates to spare them needless suffering!’

    In other words, while complaining about colonialism’s supposed drive for homogeneity, this writer praises a man who believed in establishing ruthless homogeneity in the cause of efficiency.

    This is what happens when you start hammering out political agitprop without knowing the facts.  You end up being a blasted fool and supporting that which you purport to attack.

    And not just through silly citations.  As I’ve written before, the evil of racism isn’t ‘hate’ but dehumanisation, the systematic cancellation of another person’s reality to be substituted with what you wish to believe.  That is pretty much this whole article in a nutshell: the cancelling out of the astonishing richness and diversity of the past to bring it into conformity with modern political cant.  Very well done.

    There’s a semi-sequel to this coming that discusses how reason can be used to avoid this.

    Category: The Enlightenment continues

    Article by: The Prussian

    2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

    • Copyleft

      Steampunk obviously derives from a culture thoroughly devoted to colonialism. Yet Killjoy has a point that, as a hobby, steampunk isn’t ‘about’ colonialism and indeed strives to ignore it as one of the unsavory elements of its cultural roots. Just as medieval-fantasy movies tend to gloss over the miserable lot of serfs and slaves. Surely no one thinks steampunk fans are striving for historical accuracy?

    • MostlyEvil

      Killjoy is wrong, Steampunk is totally about fancy costumes, overly elaborate modes of speech, and brassy clockwork driven machines that never were. This kind of hyper political scrabbling for some contemporary meaning beyond fanciful fun with like minded friends is just elitist poison to both the genre as a whole and especially to the people who believe such silliness.

      • bricabracwizard

        Ahh! But we are the human race and we will take things very seriously….have you not watched the ‘Life of Brian?’

    • AllYourWorld

      A lifestyle magazine represents, ironically, an attempt to homogenize by attraction for profit. The most photogenic steam punks are featured to convince purveyors that buying whatever the advertisers are selling will be a lifestyle revolution.

      The naive idealism Killjoy expresses is that her lifestyle of choice comes replete with a set of ethical values deduced from the substantive discourse of historical materialism; that is part of the aesthetic philosophy.

      Killjoy is a gatekeeper who serves the interests of the steam punk community by selling the attractiveness of a steam punk lifestyle; while the principles of equality and justice are worthy of much praise, putting on a steam punk uniform doesn’t integrate those values or eradicate oppressive conditioning that is repressed instead of expressed.

      That isn’t to say someone raised in a racist family or community ought to embrace racism, rather that it may require facing a person of the targeted ethnicity and exposing the fallacy of racial superiority inculcated in primary socialization to be re-socialized out of that race trap. Writing it out is a great way to gain a solid footing for expressing the underlying ideas and feelings in direct interactions. Race still is a complex issue around the world; we don’t yet live in a colorblind world by any measure whether we wear a steam punk uniform or not.

      The suffusion of aesthetics and ethics is common in subcultures, yet it doesn’t suffice to uncritically adopt a hegemonic philosophy in any punk subculture. Punk is always critical, all resistance and autonomy. We can dress in whatever fashion, yet we aren’t given functional philosophies with our purchases. Philosophy is a personal endeavor which requires a lot of investigation and introspection; marketing or purchasing a lifestyle aesthetic is more of a distraction from meaningful personal growth than a catalyst.

      Do without the things advertized and philosophies propagandized; do it yourself. That is the heart of punk, steam or otherwise. Thanks for your thoroughly researched and articulate inspiration Prussian!

    • MosesZD

      I’ve never looked at Steampunk as anything but (primarily) sci-fi alternative history genre (typically Victorian age) peppered with retro-futuristic machines that you might have found in a Jules Verne or HG Wells novel had they know about such things. And that is it.

      Kind of like atheism — you don’t believe in a God or gods. That’s it. It doesn’t mean you’re a skeptic. It doesn’t mean you don’t fall for every bit of New Age Woo. It doesn’t mean you have to be a liberal, libertarian, conservative, feminist or anything else. It just means you don’t believe in a God or gods and nothing else ‘necessarily’ falls within, or is a logical extension of, it’s core concept.

      And yet so many social justice warriors believe their cause/political beliefs are a natural (the One True Way) extension of their atheism. When, clearly, they’re not because, except for complete defectives, we’d all share them if they were. Which gets us to the essential observation: her entire argument is projection and wishful thinking based on her sensibilities and nothing to do with what SteamPunk is.

    • Pingback: Steampunk Is Not Dead, According to the People at This Steampunk Convention | | VipScandals()

    • Pingback: Writing Steampunk That’s More Than A Glint Of Gears: Resources for Finding the Other In Steampunk and Weird Western | The World Remains Mysterious()