Talk:Zambia (1983: Doomsday)

Semi-canon material

There is no canon material about Zambia per se, but two proposals that pre-date this article are North Zimbabwe and South Zimbabwe that mention Zambia. I suggest talking with the author(s) of those articles as you flesh out this one. Mitro 22:04, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

The line about Katanga needs to be removed.

I find it very unlikely, imo, that the dictatorial government would stand any chance at staying in power. Considering the number of coup attempts otl, you will see one topple the guy in charge sooner rather than later, post DD. 1991, at the latest.

That being said, this one will have a very good chance at staying intact, as a nation - there's no movements of any kind for it a split.

Lordganon 09:26, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have to disagree with the comment about it 'staying together'. The center, the capital, might survive, but surely it would break away at the fringes? It would be like the Galactic Empire in The Foundation, slowly dying over many years. Only here it doesn't just die out utterly.

A dictatorial govt would stay in power if it spent loads on the army, getting it large enough to fight off a popular rebellion. Of course, coup attempts would occur with weak rulers, and it would never advance, as the only way for a strong ruler to stay strong is to take out strong generals.

I hate to crib shamelessly from said novel, but it applies so much to post doomsday nations that weren't nuked, especially in Africa. GunsnadGlory 20:00, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Zambia is a nation with no ethnic troubles, regional movements, or even any major political disputes. This is a nation that is one of the best candidates in Africa to remain intact, and to even expand somewhat.

Note that I did not say that the dictator, after being overthrown, would be replaced by democracy (what is it you have against that, btw? Just seems like you have something against democracy, Guns) Odds are it would be replaced by a dictator. As I said, by 1991 at the latest.

Army size matters not at all.

That novel really isn't applicable. That's like saying that On the Beach is relevant.

Lordganon 02:56, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing against democracy. I just think that it only works well in well developed nations. America under the Articles of Confederacy was democratic, and the govt could do nothing, individual states had all the power. You would say the US are, not the US is. Look at modern democracies. India, for example, is rife with corruption, because it has money and a weak system. In crises, you don't have time to hold a referendum, you act fast, or you're up shit creek. Post-Doomsday, you face hundreds of crises a month. No time for a congress. Half these states are about as democratic as Isiro. They have a Parliament which is essentially the upper class. I hate to infringe on No Cross, No Crown... but honestly? Short term... it's useless.

Okay, but you were kinda unclear about what you meant. It did sound (maybe just to me) like you were saying that the dictatorship would fall to a popular rebellion... NOT happening if the army is large...

On the beach isn't relevant because it deals with TOTALLY different scenarios. This is psychological.

GunsnadGlory 00:31, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

That opinion is unfounded, Guns. Development has nothing to do with democracy. Have a look at this and this.

That's not an accurate picture of the Articles.

India is not weak in its government. Slightly corrupt, maybe - but not very much so. Got nothing to do with a "weak government" or money.

Nor is that an accurate picture of democracy, at all. Governments almost never hold referendums - for the same reason you describe. Why in hell would they hold one when things are collapsing around them? They would not.

Most states post-DD are democratic. As are most countries otl. Developing, Developed.... most are.

A popular rebellion is one of two likely causes. You are far overestimating the size of army a nation could ever support.

...you missed my point. Your comparison to that book is as worthless as one to "On the Beach" would be.

Lordganon 11:08, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, LG, trust me, a 'little' corruption is very, very, untrue. I lived in India, and visit every summer, as my grandparents live there. If you are implicit in a hit-and-run, unless someone died, you fork over a few hundred rupees and the cops let you go. Didn't pay your income tax? Maybe a thousand rupees will get you off. Maybe 2 thousand. India is one of the most corrupt places on Earth. It isn't just the low levels, of course. Politicians keep on getting into MAJOR scandals, and those who don't, like Manmohan Singh, are unable to do any thing about it BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE DOES IT!

Come on, LG. The Articles were a failure, because they essentially stated each state was a country, and that they should all work together. Of course, now the federal government couldn't do anything, because the states had all the power. They couldn't pay soldiers because they had nothing to back it up. As a result, inflation soars, as they keep printing now worthless notes. They can't pay their debt to other nations, for the same reason- the states don't WANT to pay the debt, and the federal government CAN'T.

I agree most STATES post-dd are democratic. This is because most STATES either descended from larger democracies (eg, West Texas), or were large enough post-dd to sustain themselves. However, remember that there are many, tinier village-states, which aren't even remotely democratic. This is because they need to act fast, in their mini-fights with other nations. They've become tribal. Most people don't live in these 'states'. But there are a lot of them. In Zambia, hoever, you are correct: it would sustain itself.

When I said "well developed", I meant that the country has a working system, ie, the Head of Govt can blow his nose without a referendum. This is an exaggeration, but you understand what I mean. That's why America has ONE president, Why Britain has ONE Prime Minister. In the middle of a war,there isn't time to consult Parliament on whether or not to attempt a drive for the enemies capital, or to offer a cease fire.

Actually, LG, you missed MY point. On The Beach doesn't apply because it is a completely different scenario. however, I do see your point about it not applying here : I meant in psychological terms. No matter.

GunsnadGlory 14:58, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

And if you think that's corrupt, then look at corruption indexes, and get off your high horse. India is slightly corrupt. Nor is it anywhere remotely close to being one of the most corrupt on earth.

As I stated: that is not an accurate picture of the Articles. Not even close. Nor is that an accurate picture of how things occurred.

No, that is not why most are democratic. Most are democratic in one form or another because that is how it turned out, and want most people aspire to in a government. Dictators fall, rapidly, as they find they cannot satisfy the people. Never have been able to do so, never will be. Democracies survive this, because they have an outlet, and can satisfy the people. And it'd be one heck of a lot more than most states, or even most societies.

And, your logic about villages is entirely without truth to it. Tribal societies are functionally democratic in nature. Not dominated by one person, as you think and probably were taught. And, in villages, a show of hands, as many towns in rural areas of the USA show constantly, is pretty simple to do. If they have to respond immediately to something, it just gets done. This is the same as in every state or society. People do not just sit there and die.

"Can blow their nose without a referendum?" You mean every country on earth? Even democracies have leaders. And if you think leaders will sit there and let their nations get screwed, you've another thing coming. Parliament, or similar bodies, are never consulted every time. Never. In all of those cases they would not do so.

No, you're missing what I'm saying. What I'm telling you is that The Foundation is not relevant in the least, and is worthless. Just like On the Beach is, in all manners.

Lordganon 11:49, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

No, LG, I don't mean 'every country on Earth'. My point is that such a country, without an executive, would fail. My point is that the REASON THERE IS A PRIME MINISTER OR PRESIDENT is that someone has to make decisions in a pinch. I DO NOT suggest that we should go back to despotism. I'm simply saying that the executive is a holdover from autocracy, and a very nesscessary one- without an element of total power, democracy doesn't work. I have NOTHING against democracy. Please stop suggesting this.

If India is slightly corrupt, according to you, then I shudder to think of other countries which are worse. Three years ago, an economist did a corruption survey. India ranked pretty high on that list. Practically EVERYONE is corrupt. Trust me, I lived there for five years and visit for two months every year.

Ok, then what do YOU think is an accurate portrait of the Articles?

I agree that my point about why states are democratic is incorrect: I phrased it badly. I meant more that in tiny 'states', that cannot sustain themselves, a ruling class will emerge to ration out food, get an army, etc.

Really, LG? In small villages in rural America, you think that a tribal democracy will emerge? Look at the towns under 'The Mayor' and 'Boss Jones', and most of the West Coast, matter of fact. Until they were forced into a more democratic government by the ANZC, they were autocratic.

In both the Foundation and the Articles, you repeat yourself without elaborating. If you will notice, I agreed that the Foundation could not be applied to this scenario, but more in general areas, as a psychological idea.

GunsnadGlory 20:01, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Executives are not a holdover from autocracy. And you misread that comment. What I said was that every country on earth functions without doing, as you put it, a referendum everything, including on blowing their noses.

You have consistently argued against democracy, and for dictatorships - thus, you favor the latter. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that's on you. And you've failed at that argument, btw.

I even quoted a source which goes out of its way to note the India is not very corrupt. You have failed to read it, and have let a few instances you have observed cloud your judgement. Please remain objective.

I see no reason to go out of my way to try and give you an education. Go look up the articles yourself, and you will see how wrong you are.

Tiny states are more than capable of sustaining themselves.

You know nothing about tribal democracy if you are saying that. And, such an environment arose in almost the entire continent post-DD.

Actually, you need to have a good look at the West Coast again. I don't know how, at all, you could come to that conclusion, since you're only talking about a single small area, ignoring that the vast majority of of it is democratic, and has always been that way. And, that small area lacks a history, in many ways, of how it came to be that way. It's also an area that is absolutely stuffed with elements that will raise hell if given a chance. There is a literal ton of survivalist and cultist places out there.

The Foundation, as I've said twice - and now, three times - is useless in that capacity.

Lordganon 07:17, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

And now, again, I comment that I AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION CANNOT BE USED HERE.

As for India, A FEW ISOLATED INCIDENTS? I haven't seen a month go past without some new major scandal arising. India IS fairly corrupt- I'm not saying it is the most corrupt on Earth.

West Coast, ok, the timeline gave me that impression, as it refered to several mini-autocracies.

I know that. I in fact said, right there, that that was an exaggration. I KNOW they don't hold a referndum on everything. I simply meant that the parliament cannot vote on everything, there must be someone who has the power to make fast decisions. This IS an element of total power, btw. Maybe a HOLDOVER was a bad way to put it.

I DIDN'T STATE THAT! I have NOT argued for dictatorships! I argued that a) in certain scenarios, there needs to be an absolute power to ration out food or defend from an invasion. I also said that in small nations, like Isiro immediately post dd, such a thing would benefit it for some time. And b) In the modern world, many nations ARE autocracies. It seems like 1983: DD is suddenly a breeding ground for democracies!

EXCUSE ME? I learnt PLENTY about the Articles. This is a unwarranted insult. I give you several facts - FACTS- about the Articles, and instead of giving any reasons why they are incorrect, you make vague and insulting allusions to my percieved stupidity.

Finally, this is all off topic from Zambia. Why are we discussing this here?

GunsnadGlory 17:40, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

You are now attempting to take back both your preference for dictatorship, and showed a lack of understanding of democracy. And no, I will not let that go, no matter how much you try and deny it.

And if you'd bother to notice, such scandals occur monthly, if not more, everywhere. As I said, you are letting your own personal views get in the way of reality. Remain Objective.

It's called checks and balances. And, it is not an "element of total power."

If think you can remotely make a statement like that about democracies in the post-DD world, then you really need to look at the timeline.

And, if you think that those are actually "facts," you're so mistaken that it's a little disturbing. Forget what you learned in school, and what you think wikipedia says, and read some books. It is not my job to teach you, and I won't. Not my fault if you take that as an insult.

Lordganon 08:56, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

I agree they occur 'everywhere' (this is an exaggeration, btw). THAT IS MY POINT. India is an example. Stop attacking my examples, they don't prove your point. Fine, yes, corruption occurs in autocracies, maybe even more than in democracies. This is not the point. In many such countries, one or two 'dynasties' control the government. That is no autocracy, but I'm not sure that's an objective democracy, if such a thing exists. Corruption exists everywhere. EVEN in democracies.

That being said, I apologize for my points on autocracy. I worded them WAY too strongly. My more recent posts are what I actually meant. The breeding ground comment also retracted. I know that's not true.

But the Articles point, this is funny. After suggesting I'm stupid, you then quickly say that schools are completely wrong (they're not objective, I'll grant you that. My History textbook reads like a bloody propaganda message), and so is wikipedia (which I guess is more easily granted), and so are the records from that time. The U.S. government DID have trouble paying it's soldiers. The US government did almost suffer an uprising. Merchants in the US DID stop accepting bills. Inflation in the US DID rise. And after all this, you make ANOTHER allusion to how stupid I am. Then you claim it isn't insulting! GunsnadGlory 00:37, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not remotely close to an exaggeration. It does happen everywhere. I will continue to attack - not that that is true, at all - your examples so long as you continue to be wrong. Nor is there any maybe about it being more common in dictatorships - again, the map I quoted you shows that you are extremely wrong there. And, if only one or two families control a government, then it is a dictatorship.

I have not once suggested you are stupid at all. You have chosen to interpret it that way. That is your fault, not mine. Schools, and textbooks, are usually presenting a biased view on the subject at hand, if it is not wrong outright. Wikipedia often leans this way, too. You have your history wrong because of these problems - I don't really fault you for that, btw, because you are not to blame for how you were taught.

It is not my responsibility or my job to teach you - and I won't. That is up to you. Any inclination to do so on my part flew out the window weeks ago. Again, it is not my fault if you find that insulting.

Lordganon 07:20, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

In India, the Gandhi family has controlled national politics for a long time. Occasionally the BJP will break through, but most of the time, one of them is in power. In the current time, Monmohan Singh is PM, but that is only because Sonia Gandhi is Italian born, and that would hurt the Congress party in the polls. Is India a dictatorship? Really?

... I'm not going to argue further on the Articles point, because this is completely off topic. I just want to say, I'm not asking you to 'teach' me anything. You may of course be right. I don't know. I can only trust in what I know.

GunsnadGlory 19:28, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

You put far, far, more emphasis on the Gandhi's than is at all accurate. They do not control it, though I'm not shocked to see that from you, to be honest. By virtue of Gandhi's role in independence, they will for decades to come remain famous, and well-known - and always given positions of respect. Looking at all at any list of those in power is enough to show your statement to be wrong. Nor is that her reasoning - notice how they won the election with her as party leader, very unexpectedly? She simply did not expect to win, at all, and did not want to lead. Pretty common.

India is not even remotely close to being a "dictatorship." India is a fully-functioning democracy, ranked 39th out of 167 ranked countries - in the top quarter - and is one of the most democratic on earth.

And, you missed my point: corruption is, by far, most common in dictatorships.

Lordganon 09:57, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, no, LG. I meant exactly that: India isn't a dictatorship. It is slightly dynastic: look at the conterversy surrounding Rahul Gandhi, the next expected Congress leader. He's not the right material, and people notice it, but he is a Gandhi, so much confusion about the future of the Congress party exists. I know that the Gandhis are exeptionally famous for this, I know it isn't their fault. I simply meant that it is true.

Okay, LG. I didn't comment on the corruption point because you've convinced me. GunsnadGlory 00:11, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

What you "meant" is not what you said, at all.

...You missed my point about the Gandhi's entirely. You're also greatly exaggerating that particular one, and actually ignoring the things he's done. Notice the massive size of his wins in elections? Sheesh. And his mother only took her job to save the party. It's not dynastic, at all.

Think of it this way: Gandhi is like most of the US Founding Fathers, rolled into one - figuratively, at least. Barring the ones tainted in some manner, or without, by and large, descendants, the FF's children, etc. held power and influence for some time to come - Adams and Lee, especially. The same can be said for several others through US history, such as the Kennedys, Rooswvelts, Lincolns, and Harrisions. The Churchills, and the Trudeaus, would be example from elsewhere. And, these cases are especially so if those with the connection are... higher intellects, I suppose, is a good way to put it, thought not entirely true.

Now, Gandhi's got a lot of these combined. Add to that that his descendants are pretty bright, and he died very tragically. They will hold influence for decades to come.

And, too, Rahul is massively popular among the youth of India. Three guesses who the biggest voting block in India is. Will be several more years, but power of some sort is very likely.

Lordganon 10:15, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Rahul is popular among the people, but among the politicians? Not so much.

No, you misunderstood me. When I siad that, I was asking if, since you claim that if one or two families ruling a country made a dictatorship, YOU thought India is a dictatorship.

I agree. But still, just because others were dynastic, doesn't mean they're not. As I said, it's not their fault they control the Congress (well, not really), but still. They do control it, and it does kinda go into the next kin. 165.155.204.118 19:23, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the politicians. The older ones, maybe - but bet on the younger ones making him leader sooner than later.

That's not what you said. Nor is one word of that true for India. Nor does that family actually control the Congress Party.

Lordganon 04:40, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

That is what I said- but it was very badly phrased, I guess.

Ok. That's true. But the older ones control the party, for now.

Ack, forgot to login. Sorry. GunsnadGlory 02:32, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Anyway...I'm the author of the North Zimbabwe and South Zimbabwe articles. I will hopefully be finishing those soon, but they're complete enough that you should have most of the relevant information you need for this article. I like your article so far, but if you have any questions feel free to ask. Caeruleus 17:21, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Knew that it had to be you, Guns. No need to be sorry, I can tell by writing style who it was, lol.

Lordganon 09:19, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Kingdoms Fall

Gold, not possible to conquer all of those. That's well beyond the abilities of Zambia. I've pruned it back for you. Only a single one of the Kingdoms is even within attack range, Gold. Lordganon (talk) 09:46, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Adoption

Umm, yeah, can I?

           Flectere si nequeos superos- Acheronta Movebo!  22:55, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of puting my very first article up  for adoption but, i am willing to give you permission to zambaia in your angoal invasion project.

~Gold

Not quite what it is, but thanks!

           Flectere si nequeos superos- Acheronta Movebo!  00:05, February 11, 2014 (UTC)