Is a Do-over still a Do-over if the main character is the son of the traveler. I am sketching out a story, coming of age, and the father tells his son about being sent back for multi-generational plan. Harem and nanotechnology involved. Feedback please.
I would say it continues to be a Do-Over for the [fore] father (or mother), but it's not a Do-Over for the descendants as they didn't exist the first time round.
Maybe its a Done-over? Or a Dad-over? Or place it near the White cliffs in England and its a Dover-over. Its not over til its over. Has the fat lady sung yet?
Maybe its a Done-over? Or a Dad-over?
More like a do-do over... errr, doo-doo-over. Nope, I like that fat lady singing, better. Like that old song, kinda goes, "Do that ree-doo that you do so well?"
Or, "Like father wasn't but was, like son till he isn't but is?"
Sounds different. If it isn't a Do-over then I don't know what else you would call it, so Do-over works for me.
PS. Ignore the children.
Sounds different. If it isn't a Do-over then I don't know what else you would call it, so Do-over works for me.
PS. Ignore the children.
I agree with Zom. Technically, it wouldn't be a do-over if the character doesn't travel back in time, but then again, it deals with the subject of do-overs, so you'd need to label it as a do-over. I think you should label it as a do-over, but clearly mention in the story description that it's not a do-over story, which might take some interesting wording.
It sounds like a variation of "The Time Travel's Wife", which focuses on those who's life are affected by time travels, rather than retelling yet anther do-over story.
That story did phenomenally well, so there's definitely a market for it, but I'd approach it with caution, because it's harder to carry off than a traditional do-over is (you've got to build the appeal the more standard story automatically offers).
I think a key point here is the date the time traveler ends up in.
Let's say the father is Horace the third and he talks about going back to the mid 1800s and being Horace the first, and this repeats a few times, which he knows because of diaries kept by Horace the first and Horace the third reads them. The son is Horace the fourth and for some reason he's the one that goes back in time to the same date and place in the mid 1800s to be Horace the first. Since it's the life of Horace the first being replayed, then it's clearly a do over.
However, if Horace the fourth goes back in time to the mid 1700 s to be the great grandfather of Horace the first, then it's more a time travel story than a do over story.
The key is the not the character who travels back in time, but the character who's life is relived and rewritten.
That is a good reason for all those destinations time wise causing a dimensional split. History would probably hate that kind of a loop. To many possible changes in history. Any change would have to almost guarantee an alternate timeline or dimension.
Any change would have to almost guarantee an alternate timeline or dimension.
or an erasing of the original history.
or an erasing of the original history.
As the old saying (in one of Plato's stories) goes, you can never step in the same river twice, because it's always different. If you travel back in time, no matter what you do, the future will cease to exist and an entirely new future the time travel could never imagine while living in that earlier time will unfold. However, since the future changes, he'd never know it (if he returned). More likely, because he changed the future by traveling to the past, he'd never be able to return (in a time-travel story, rather than a do-over tale).
cease to exist and an entirely new future the time travel could never imagine while living in that earlier time will unfold.
CW,
The tree main thoughts on the time travel and change system are:
1. Fate won't allow any major changes to stand and they'll be wiped out.
2. A new dimension or timeline is created with each change and then runs parallel to the original. (which is how I was reading what doc was saying).
3. The previous history is erased and a whole new one created from scratch. (which is what i was saying in my response to doc).
The tree main thoughts on the time travel and change system are:
4. You can't change anything, because any "changes" you make in the past becomes the history you grew up learning. The history you already know already includes any changes you might make.
DS, your alternative 4 is DE's alternative 1
There is an option 4 however. That is that you don't change anything because there's only one, very loopy and twisty time line in which everything you do, including the time travel is the way it originally happened.
There is an option 4 however. That is that you don't change anything because there's only one, very loopy and twisty time line in which everything you do, including the time travel is the way it originally happened.
That's what I was trying to describe when I said any thing you do in the past is already part of the history you know. My 4 is not a matter of some paradox correcting effect preventing any changes, but the fact that what ever the time traveler does in the past is already part of the history he grew up with. Which is completely different from just saying you can't change anything because history is fixed.
That's what I was trying to describe when I said any thing you do in the past is already part of the history you know. My 4 is not a matter of some paradox correcting effect preventing any changes, but the fact that what ever the time traveler does in the past is already part of the history he grew up with. Which is completely different from just saying you can't change anything because history is fixed.
There's another line of thought that says that, since the time traveler hasn't lived out his entire life, that any changes to history the time traveler made won't impact his own history until he goes back (and then ceases to exist). That's a more chronological approach to the problem (i.e. the events have to occur before they can affect the future).
That's a more chronological approach to the problem (i.e. the events have to occur before they can affect the future).
Except from the perspective of the universe and everyone else, including the time-travelers teachers, those events have already happened.
I can see how the time-traveler's present self might be isolated from the immediate effects of the changes, but it seems nonsensical to me that his pre time travel self could be so isolated.
The tree main thoughts on the time travel and change system are:
Yeah, I know, but I've gotten sick and tired of people repeating these suppositions as if they're established Physics theories, rather than simply guesswork about fictional events. I prefer the view that any change, no matter how minor, would likely prevent the eventual time travel discovery from ever occurring.
Yeah, I know, but I've gotten sick and tired of people repeating these suppositions as if they're established Physics theories, rather than simply guesswork about fictional events.
As you point out the entire concept is (by current knowledge) fictional. That hasn't stopped many great SF authors creating ideas.
Even SOL authors play around; for example, in the Greenies series the main character eventually goes back multiple generations and remarries his great, great...... grandmother who is also his (not-quite) widow!
Imitating past Popes versus several scientists, if someone actually believes those ideas or the concepts they should be excommunicated from SOL
edited for accuracy - since the man didn't actually die he couldn't have left a widow.
2. A new dimension or timeline is created with each change and then runs parallel to the original. (which is how I was reading what doc was saying).
Most likely result of time travel. The original traveler could make multiple trips between his/her origin point and the earlier time point without recognizing the change in dimensions unless they could somehow be detected. In one story I enjoy the time transfer was one way but the extra dimension effect was told to him by the Spirits. The MC was worried that his actions would mess up his original time line. Instead they created a completely new time line or dimension. The divergence began when he arrived I believe, but not sure of the actual point in time it occurred.
Most likely result of time travel. The original traveler could make multiple trips between his/her origin point and the earlier time point without recognizing the change in dimensions unless they could somehow be detected.
It's a clever story meme, with zero basis in actual science. The idea of parallel universes has been suggested (in relation to the interior of black holes), but that concept is vastly different than what we're discussing.
That's why I get exhausted by stories which belabor these three concepts as "established facts" about time-travel, as they're each absolute nonsense. There's no reason to believe any of them have any basis in reality. You can get away with quoting it, since most time-travel fans already buy into the concept, but it doesn't appeal to a 'hard science fiction' fan like myself.
I admit its just a theory or maybe a wild idea. But that is what fiction does best. It presents those ideas in an entertaining fashion. Sometimes those ideas lead to great discoveries and mistakes as well. I know the science at present doesn't support it at all and might never support it.
I admit its just a theory or maybe a wild idea. But that is what fiction does best. It presents those ideas in an entertaining fashion. Sometimes those ideas lead to great discoveries and mistakes as well. I know the science at present doesn't support it at all and might never support it.
I don't object to inventing alternative science for stories, or even with referencing common story memes. What I resent is the stating of these far-fetched guesses as 'facts' in a story--as if you couldn't present an equally strong alternate case.
Any time you mention time-travel stories, someone digs up this old canard, stating what's allowable in said stories and what's not.
@Richard
Considering the erotic portion of stories on this site, should this be a hard fan of science fiction? Sexually aroused by a much sex story. Or is it a hard-science fan of fiction? Or fan of science fiction that emphasizes mathematical or other "hard sciences" like Physics and Chemistry as opposed to say psychology or anthropology. As always it depends in part on context.
I know you're teasing, but there's a clear distinction in sci-fi communities between science fantasy ("Star Wars" and "Star Trek") and hard sci-fi (hard to add a second dash into the phrase) like "The Martian" or "Gravity". One deals with purely made up worlds, while the other deals with building situations out of established science (i.e. more likely to happen, or at least more supportable within a science and math community).
@sejintenej
As you point out the entire concept is (by current knowledge) fictional. That hasn't stopped many great SF authors creating ideas.
Repeating myself, I have no objection to authors inventing novel worlds. In fact, I actively encourage it. What I dislike is when one group begins dictating which are valid story ideas, and which aren't allowed, based exclusively on accepted memes.
I'm not saying anyone has to write hard science fiction, only that it doesn't make sense dictating what kinds of science fictions stories can be written.
Any time you mention time-travel stories, someone digs up this old canard, stating what's allowable in said stories and what's not.
That is why I think of the stories as an alternate timeline or dimension. That way any and all potential changes will not affect our timeline. Funny part is the only ones who would know for sure are those involved in the events. No one would trust governments or other organizations with that kind of ability.
No one would trust governments or other organizations with that kind of ability.
I wouldn't trust myself with that kind of ability and you expect me to trust someone else with it?
I wouldn't trust myself with that kind of ability and you expect me to trust someone else with it?
How true and for that knowledge to be recorded Trust would be the biggest factor. Otherwise the person proving it would probably destroy any records they had to prove it for safety. Same rules apply to any so called Mental powers as well.
Another semi-analytical post, this time about "hard science fiction fan". Considering the erotic portion of stories on this site, should this be a hard fan of science fiction? Sexually aroused by a much sex story. Or is it a hard-science fan of fiction? Or fan of science fiction that emphasizes mathematical or other "hard sciences" like Physics and Chemistry as opposed to say psychology or anthropology. As always it depends in part on context. A discussion of hard science fiction in Analog (formerly Astounding) Science (Fact and) Fiction would clearly not consider sexual arousal of the fan. On SOL, maybe. Oddly enough you don't see much discussion of soft science fiction. Mostly that is Fantasy, or one of the other SCI-FI variants. Or maybe a story by Ray Bradbury.
Or maybe a story by Ray Bradbury.
I just introduced my son to Ray Bradbury's "Martian Chronicles" and he loved it. I need to find more for him to read.
2. A new dimension or timeline is created with each change and then runs parallel to the original. (which is how I was reading what doc was saying).
This is my favored option, although to be scientific from that point on either a lot of energy would be involved(you're basically creating a new universe), or you're transitioning to a universe that just somehow magically coincides with your specified time frame that already existed, or some other advanced and unknown quantum mechanics are involved.
But regardless of the "how" (and how questionable their ability to return may be), you also get that other supposed proof for why time travel must not be possible: Why aren't we neck deep in time traveling tourists during major events?
Four options are
1) it's simply not possible.
2) it's a one way trip(not viable for most people to want to explore),
3) it spawns/connects to a new alternate version virtually every time a connection is made(how long the "connection" remains and in what form, however...), so depending on methodology used, you may only be looking at a comparatively small number of travelers per temporal incursion. Which is how they escape notice.
4) They are just that good at escaping notice.
Why aren't we neck deep in time traveling tourists during major events?
5. We are that good at not noticing.
6. Two way trips are possible and don't spawn alternate time lines, but time travel requires a huge amount of energy, making it very expensive, limiting the number of trips that can be made and keeping the number of tourists to a minimum.
7. The major events in the present and recent history are not that interesting to the people who have access to time travel.
A thought occurred to me based on the original question. What about a father/ son ride along similar to Methusala story.
There are really only two points of view that have credence IMHO:
1/ Time travel can't happen, mainly because it defeats entropy, but also because if it could happen we would have seen evidence of it.
2/ Time travel does happen, and does cause "kill my father" paradoxes which result in localised space-time loop distortions. An interesting story I read once postulated that pulsars were in fact signatures of such loop distortions releasing huge amounts of energy at a pulse rate related to the amount of time in the loop. Nonsense, but interesting.
1/ Time travel can't happen, mainly because it defeats entropy, but also because if it could happen we would have seen evidence of it.
Years ago I read a story where that was the main point against time-travel, until a time-traveler turned up and told them about the science of time-travel and the restrictions on it by the science. One point was no one could travel in time until after a certain mathematical breakthrough was made and a device invented to take advantage of it. The other point was that a time-traveler can only travel to a point in time as far before his birth as he is after his birth due to the energy factors involved. Thus there was a definitive period that limited when time-travelers could appear in the past and it wasn't possible to appear before then. - it was an interesting view of the concept.
but also because if it could happen we would have seen evidence of it.
Would we recognize such evidence if we saw it? Or would we dismiss/ignore it because it doesn't fit our world view.
I've read claims of a fossil dinosaur footprint track that also has what appear to be human footprints in the same layer of sediment. Now where I have seen this is in creationist arguments against evolution as evidence humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time.
Could it be evidence of time travel instead?
If such evidence existed, but was in the hands of the government, would they make it public, or keep it secret?
Could it be evidence of time travel instead?
Ha-ha. Humorous thought, but I suspect any culture scientifically advanced enough to utilize time travel would have long-ago figured out how to design and utilize shoes! 'D
Ha-ha. Humorous thought, but I suspect any culture scientifically advanced enough to utilize time travel would have long-ago figured out how to design and utilize shoes! 'D
I know of some people who deliberately choose not to wear shoes or even sandals.
I know of some people who deliberately choose not to wear shoes or even sandals.
I used to do that. Raised on sand beaches, my feet were calloused so I could walk across almost anything. I even went barefoot in both Chicago and Manhattan, and trained myself so that, when I took a step and felt something sharp, I wouldn't put pressure on that foot. As a result, I could walk across broken glass without injury.
However, that ended when, for reasons I never understood, the homeless in Manhattan suddenly started screaming at me about not wearing shoes. I have no clue what triggered that response, as one day they were fine, and the next there were three or four regular homeless who would trail me, screaming at the top of their lungs about my lack of shoes.
After that, not wanting awkward encounters, I started wearing shoes again (I always wore them at work, but always took them off when I was on off), and my feet have never again been conditioned enough to walk anywhere without shoes again.
I've got another 'friend' who walks barefoot to church. If it snows, he'll wear sandals--possibly with socks. It freaks quite a few of the church members out--but I suspect that's more because they're germaphobes than they fear they'll 'catch something', since no one else walks barefoot in the sanctuary.
@Zom
My assertion comes from the notion that if time travel is developed in the future then travel to our now or nearish past could be undertaken from a near infinite number of time points from then on, and we would not be discussing one or two pieces of evidence, but in fact would be drowning in evidence.
The time involved to fossilize remains, especially footprints, as not just remote, but astronomical. It literally takes hundreds of millions of years to fossilize sand or mud into rock, after which it's buried under tons of rock and stone, with most footprints simply disappearing.
We have a small handful of dinosaur footprints, and that's left over from the dominate life on the planet for hundreds of millions of years. The odds of a few hundred time travels could easily slip by unnoticed.
However, I take a similar attitude about aliens. Many look at the total number of stars, and theorize that there must be other life forms capable of space travel. I look at the same numbers, and factor in the billions of years we've had life on the planet, and consider we've only had space travel for 50 years, and figure a space faring life form wouldn't be likely to survive long enough to make much of an impact.
@Not_an_ID
This is my favored option, although to be scientific from that point on either a lot of energy would be involved(you're basically creating a new universe), or you're transitioning to a universe that just somehow magically coincides with your specified time frame that already existed, or some other advanced and unknown quantum mechanics are involved.
Personally, I find the 'alternate universe' every time someone does anything to be completely unrealistic. Essentially, you'd create a new universe every time you paused between breaths, because that's another possible event which might vary the timeline. It's simply implausible. I can agree that alternate universes might be created when black holes form (though there's no real convincing mathematical evidence it would), I can't fathom a single traveling human could generate the phenomenal energy required to create a million separate universes, each housing billions of other living creatures, each of whom would be generating their own alternate universes. There's simply not that much energy in the multiverse!
However, I take a similar attitude about aliens. Many look at the total number of stars, and theorize that there must be other life forms capable of space travel. I look at the same numbers, and factor in the billions of years we've had life on the planet, and consider we've only had space travel for 50 years, and figure a space faring life form wouldn't be likely to survive long enough to make much of an impact.
If there is other life out there, and the odds favor it, just because it took x billion years for intelligent life to develop here, does not mean that it would take that long everywhere else. And even if it does, our star system is no where near being the oldest in our galaxy. The idea that there is another civilization out there that is 1000s of years older than ours is not that far fetched.
On the other hand, even if you assume that they are out there, the odds of making contact are very low.
Contacting an alien civilization no more advanced than our own over interstellar distance would be pointless, even assuming it's possible.
If there is an advanced alien civilization with practical (FTL) interstellar travel, it seems unlikely to me that they would be using EM radiation for communication except at extremely short ranges. Signal attenuation alone would make EM based communications useless at interstellar ranges useless unless huge amounts of raw energy are put into the signal at the source.
Even for the purposes of detecting us, an alien race would need a ridiculously large antenna to detect our radio and TV broadcasts form light years away. Even then, they would probably have to be explicitly looking for those kinds of signals.
So the only realistic scenario for contact in the near term is them coming to Earth.
That gets you to the next problem. Assuming such an advanced alien civilization exists, why would they come here?
That gets you to the next problem. Assuming such an advanced alien civilization exists, why would they come here?
Seeking more living space or more food sources - either doesn't bode well for those already here when they arrive.
typo edit
perhaps our current pollution level, and its continuation is good. If aliens prefer unspoiled "earths" then they won't want to settle here.
perhaps our current pollution level, and its continuation is good. If aliens prefer unspoiled "earths" then they won't want to settle here.
Or maybe our current pollution level and it's continuation is making the earth more hospitable for them.
Or maybe our current pollution level and it's continuation is making the earth more hospitable for them.
OBSF: "Occam's Scalpel" by Theodore Sturgeon.
Seeking more living space or more food sources - either doesn't bod well for those already here when they arrive.
The why problem is more for those who think they are already here.
That gets you to the next problem. Assuming such an advanced alien civilization exists, why would they come here?
To vote for Trump, obviously. Either that, or to build a wall to keep him from getting out, and to make him pay for it at that!
To vote for Trump, obviously. Either that, or to build a wall to keep him from getting out, and to make him pay for it at that!
:D :D
To vote for Trump, obviously. Either that, or to build a wall to keep him from getting out, and to make him pay for it at that!
Keep Trump in, but let the rest of us out! If Herr Trump gets elected and starts his 4th Reich, I want to emigrate to Australia. Unfortunately, I'm old, disabled and poor. I doubt they would grant me a resident visa. Could I pass myself off as a political refugee?
The way I look at the dang election is its a question of which one is most likely to do the least damage. None of them are honest otherwise they wouldn't be in politics.
The way I look at the dang election is its a question of which one is most likely to do the least damage. None of them are honest otherwise they wouldn't be in politics.
That's how I've been doing it for about 30 plus years. It doesn't affect me, but the current US election seems to come down to a choice of (a) put armed guards on the border to keep non-citizens out and the citizens safe while you tax their arses off to pay for it, or (b) hand over the country's assets to non-citizens and tax the arse off the citizens to pay for it while denying the citizens access to the same assets and services.
typo edit
US election seems to come down to a choice
As another 'watcher' I have to say that you can't believe a single word any of them say, so any choice is basically random. Trump's campaign looks for all the world like that of a junior school. It is entirely emotive and sound bite driven, which is why he is being so successful with his followers. Yet his opponents
still seem to think that he can be defeated with facts and reason, both of which have no appeal to his followers at all.
That's how I've been doing it for about 30 plus years.
I lost all trust in the country and the state of Georgia when without breaking a damned law, I LOST MY CITIZENSHIP AND CIVIL RIGHTS. I was 15 when they took them from me without a damned trial. Hell criminals had more rights and protection than I had.
Like the time a man pulled a weapon on me at my own home and yet I was the one about to go to jail for it. Ha what protection from cops. I admit I have had a bad attitude for around 45 years now because of those things among others.
I lost all trust in the country
Doc, I don't mean to stir old wounds or anything. But in my post I simple agreed with you and stated how I saw what the two sides are acting like. I make no mention of cops or civil rights.
It was the accumulation affect I think. So many seem to think the law has to be obeyed. Well I get tired of the attitude that they are such great people. I hate to think of how much temptation I resisted to keep from becoming a member of a criminal organization. It would have been so much easier in some ways. I could have had a good income even if it was illegal as heck. I just couldn't go that route however. edited to add: That organization had a major role in interstate drug transportation. I hate drugs so there was no way for me to join in that kind of operation.
I LOST MY CITIZENSHIP AND CIVIL RIGHTS.
I'm no lover of government, and I think most cops are thugs, but citizenship is supposed to be damn hard to revoke, impossible for birthright citizenship.
If it's not too painful, can you provide a little detail on that end of it.
I'm no lover of government, and I think most cops are thugs, but citizenship is supposed to be damn hard to revoke, impossible for birthright citizenship.
It was done under an old mental health law where if you were institutionalized your citizenship was revoked and all rights as well. That law was still in effect until 1969 when a new law revoked all previous state laws. I couldn't even own my own underwear let alone anything else. Previous to the new law the only ones who didn't lose their citizenship were the Veterans and the ones who signed themselves in to the hospital.
edited to add: Also even though supposedly my records required my signature to be released after I reached 21, the insurance companies among others seems to have had copies of those records. I was fired from a job on the insistence of an insurer who used a direct quote from those records. How the hell did they get that quote without my releasing the information.
How the hell did they get that quote without my releasing the information.
I read an article yesterday about a teacher who had sex with her 12-yo student multiple times in her house and a motel after giving him alcohol and pot. Somehow she wasn't convicted. Something to do with testimony from her two kids and her homeless schizophrenic husband.
Anyway, she was fired from her teaching job. However, a judge overruled the firing saying the school fired her based on sealed court documents they shouldn't have had access to.
It was done under an old mental health law where if you were institutionalized your citizenship was revoked and all rights as well. That law was still in effect until 1969 when a new law revoked all previous state laws.
Something doesn't add up here, there's no way your citizenship could be revoked under state law. If it was revoked, it would have to be done pursuant to federal law.
According to the state law at that time it was. I am not saying it was legal. As far as I know none of the old mental health laws were ever reviewed by the federal courts at any level. Its funny how many civil rights are violated under those laws as a result of that little factor. I do know that when Kennedy was shot I laughed and did the same thing when Reagan was almost shot.
edited to add: None of us outside of the Veterans were ever called patients. We were all called INMATES.
According to the state law at that time it was.
You can loose your rights under state law by being declared incompetent, but that does not revoke your citizenship. If someone told you it did, you were misinformed. If a state government claims to have done so, the action was void (meaning it never had any valid legal effect)
You can loose your rights under state law by being declared incompetent, but that does not revoke your citizenship.
I don't know the current law, but some years ago, when I first did some research into the US Constitution and like matters, I found out that US citizenship came from being a recognised citizen of the state you lived in or through recognition under federal law such as naturalization. I never followed that through into later years, and I expect law changes since then have likely changed it. However, since proof of US birth is proof of US citizenship, and the valid birth certificates are usually issued by the states, there would still be a state involvement there.
This is one of those topics where you could spend ages digging through the legal archives to find out what it was through the ages and when it changed to what the current law is.
don't know the current law, but some years ago, when I first did some research into the US Constitution and like matters, I found out that US citizenship came from being a recognised citizen of the state you lived in or through recognition under federal law such as naturalization.
What you are referring to only ever applied to people who were already alive and citizens of their individual states at the time of the enactment of the existing US constitution.
Subsequent to that all persons born with the territory of the United state were automatically considered citizens under federal law. The only exception to this was for slaves and the children of slave mothers prior to the civil war.
Subsequent to that all persons born with the territory of the United state were automatically considered citizens under federal law.
That might be so, but how do you prove it without the state issued documentation. Also, the rule wasn't always applied to federal territories during the 1800s - many people of Mexican decent born in US territories at that time were refused US citizenship.
That might be so, but how do you prove it without the state issued documentation.
The only document you need is county issued birth certificate.
There is also a clause that if a person under the age of five is found inside the United States is a citizen unless / until it can be definitively proven that the individual was born outside the US.
many people of Mexican decent born in US territories at that time were refused US citizenship.
I suspect that most of those denied citizenship were born in those territories before they became US territories.
Otherwise the denial would have been contrary to Federal laws regarding citizenship as they existed at the time. On the other hand, federal law was generally not well enforced in the territories.
Otherwise the denial would have been contrary to Federal laws regarding citizenship as they existed at the time. On the other hand, federal law was generally not well enforced in the territories.
More than likely it was a case of people wanting to ignore them, because many had been born in the very houses their parents had been born in, well after the areas became US territories. But laws and politics don't always match, especially when bigotry gets involved.
More than likely it was a case of people wanting to ignore them, because many had been born in the very houses their parents had been born in, well after the areas became US territories. But laws and politics don't always match, especially when bigotry gets involved.
Or poor/spotty record keeping on top of it all, which wouldn't be too shocking for low income and or minority groups. I know there were a number of whites born in 19th Century America who weren't quite sure which year they were born in, let alone the other details.
Usually because they were told by family they were born at a specified date, but their paperwork gave a different date entirely, different years being given not being uncommon.
Paperwork getting "lost," misfiled, or inadvertently destroyed(fires happened in wooden structures, particularly when working around papers and open flames) also wasn't out of the question. Again, low income areas being more prone to records being kept in more hazardous locations.
Or poor/spotty record keeping on top of it all, which wouldn't be too shocking for low income and or minority groups. I know there were a number of whites born in 19th Century America who weren't quite sure which year they were born in, let alone the other details.
I agree with you, however, the cases I read about they had solid records, but the authorities refused to admit them. Good Catholics of Mexican heritage and all the births and christenings recorded by the priest in the parish records. By denying the validity of the birth it made it easier for the authorities to take their lands without paying for them. The ones I read about were in the New Mexico Territory and the Arizona Territory, and some cases even happened after they were made states.
typo edit
It was done under an old mental health law where if you were institutionalized your citizenship was revoked and all rights as well.
I think you're confusing rights with citizenship. For example, a convicted felon can't vote. He lost that right. But he's still a citizen. So due to a mental state you may lose the rights to your financial matters, for example, but you're still a citizen.
I'm no lover of government, and I think most cops are thugs, but citizenship is supposed to be damn hard to revoke, impossible for birthright citizenship.
There are proposals in the UK to simply revoke citizenship if you have even been involved in terrorism. One wonders where they would send those of us whose ancestors have been here since 1066!
As for dealing with the government I need to have a "Gateway" ID but when I applied it was refused. All I wanted to do was renew my driving licence which expires in a few months time (you cannot do it over the counter here). To get round it I had to give my passport number (how many Americans hold valid passports?) plus three other personal reference numbers and, including months, how long I have lived here and answer eight screens of detailed questions (and my licence has always been clean!) The bastards even imported a company to cancel my national ID number and issue another which they never told me.
H G Wells got it right. It is long past 1984 here!
There are proposals in the UK to simply revoke citizenship if you have even been involved in terrorism.
I was speaking to US law. There are few provisions if US law allowing for revocation of citizenship. About the only case I can think of where citizenship can be revoked after it has been granted is for cases of fraudulent applications for citizenship.
I lost all trust in the country and the state of Georgia when without breaking a damned law, I LOST MY CITIZENSHIP AND CIVIL RIGHTS. I was 15 when they took them from me without a damned trial. Hell criminals had more rights and protection than I had.
Sadly, travesties of justice occur everywhere. They aren't limited to a single government. That's why the American system, at least, supposedly has checks and balances, so when one side swings too far astray, they can be called on it. It doesn't always work (and generally doesn't in most cases), but you can't denounce all efforts to improve a government because of a single outlier case.
It doesn't always work (and generally doesn't in most cases), but you can't denounce all efforts to improve a government because of a single outlier case.
We can however denounce all such efforts that have been attempted and/or are being attempted as not being improvements at all.
Sadly, travesties of justice occur everywhere. They aren't limited to a single government. That's why the American system, at least, supposedly has checks and balances, so when one side swings too far astray, they can be called on it. It doesn't always work (and generally doesn't in most cases), but you can't denounce all efforts to improve a government because of a single outlier case.
I think this is the case for a lot of the support Trump is getting. People have decided the system is so rotten and corrupt they might as well try to burn it all down and hope Congress finds the reset button before all is lost. Trump just happens to make a compelling case for being just the arsonist they want in the Oval Office.
It doesn't help that the power brokers in the GOP went scorched earth on the Tea Party in 2014 on many races. Their disenfranchised voters, the ones who gave up on even the Tea Party, are coming out to give them their reward this year.
I was told to my face by a practicing attorney that I couldn't begin to afford to defend my Constitutional Rights. That was thirty-five years ago. In that time it's become triply-impossible for a US citizen to enter in to a court of law to redress grievances. It is only when a crusading group such as the Southern Poverty Law Center or some law school project intercedes that a citizen of normal means begins to get access.
As for higher courts or upper-level authorities, such as a state or federal attorney general interceding, forget it. Case in point: refer to the communities surrounding St. Louis, MO and their decades-long practice of extorting traffic fines and court costs from low-income citizens to fund their municipal budgets. No higher authorities intervened until after the racial explosion and national publicity (and embarrassment) occurred following so-called peace officers gunning down unarmed citizens in the streets.
It's one thing to say, under the law, they can't do that! but it's a totally different world out there, in the real world.
The way I look at the dang election is its a question of which one is most likely to do the least damage. None of them are honest otherwise they wouldn't be in politics.
You keep saying that, but there's a price we pay as a culture for not having invested in infrastructure for the last 40 years. Saying you prefer politicians fight like cats and dogs so they won't do anything is pointless, as then they serve no purpose whatsoever. Instead, I'd prefer the traditional method, where everyone tries to do what's right, and when they screw up, as they often do, we either have the courts to right it, or the next election cycle allows another attempt at tempering the damage. But doing nothing simply means that everything collapses over time!
But doing nothing simply means that everything collapses over time!
There are a number of people in the US who wish for that very thing to happen. Some are Survivalist nuts with a crazy desire to live in a post-apocalyptic world. Some are religious nutjobs thinking it will bring about the Rapture. Some are extremist Libertarians wanting to set the wolves loose on society, thinking that they will be one of the wolves.
There are a number of people in the US who wish for that very thing to happen. Some are Survivalist nuts with a crazy desire to live in a post-apocalyptic world. Some are religious nutjobs thinking it will bring about the Rapture. Some are extremist Libertarians wanting to set the wolves loose on society, thinking that they will be one of the wolves.
There's a story idea for you. A Survivalist story where the fight isn't set in a post-apocalyptic environment, but one where the population has elected to renounce any kind of political action, and everyone is left to their own devices. You can steer it in anyway you want, to supporting laws, to rejecting them outright, to ranting about the loss of family values (which really only existed in people's fantasies, as mostly it was a restrictive enforcement of property values since women weren't allowed to either work, vote or own property, and were, in fact, considered the property of her husband).
I used to do that. Raised on sand beaches, my feet were calloused so I could walk across almost anything. I even went barefoot in both Chicago and Manhattan, and trained myself so that, when I took a step and felt something sharp, I wouldn't put pressure on that foot. As a result, I could walk across broken glass without injury.
I was also brought up without shoes like you. In my retirement I often avoid shoes.
OK at school I was forced to wear shoes and eventually got broken glass in my shoes: matron was displeased to see my canary yellow uniform socks stained red!
Worse, I nearly got the sack at work. Cashiers in the bank were required to wear black leather lace up shoes but one day the boss, Mr Friend, saw me in brown sandals (which customers couldn't see). The fact that my foot was in plaster from the night before(I got frequent fractures) and no shoe would go over the plaster was no excuse. I was O U T! for breaking the rules. (A step brother with clout kept me there).
Would we recognize such evidence if we saw it?
If you mean like the Paluxy 'man tracks' then they have been pretty thoroughly discounted.
My assertion comes from the notion that if time travel is developed in the future then travel to our now or nearish past could be undertaken from a near infinite number of time points from then on, and we would not be discussing one or two pieces of evidence, but in fact would be drowning in evidence.
Even the best and most stringent control of the capability would fail occasionally, as it does for other things (sorry X-Files), and near infinite divided by a million is still pretty near infinite.
Governments of the world demonstrably can't keep real secrets from anyone for any length of time. Why would time travel evidence be in a class of its own?
If you mean like the Paluxy 'man tracks' then they have been pretty thoroughly discounted.
That doesn't mean they should be.
My assertion comes from the notion that if time travel is developed in the future then travel to our now or nearish past could be undertaken from a near infinite number of time points
Could be does not mean would be.
we would not be discussing one or two pieces of evidence, but in fact would be drowning in evidence.
How much evidence is irrelevant, until you can demonstrate that any single piece of evidence would be recognized as such.
That doesn't mean they should be.
Should by whose standard?
Could be does not mean would be.
And also doesn't mean wouldn't.
How much evidence is irrelevant ...
Evidence is evidence. Interpretation is always uncertain. I am not demonstrating evidence. I am only stating a point of view. All the evidence available that the world was not flat didn't result in recognition; quite the reverse. But those that knew still knew, and said so.
There is also the issue of children born overseas whose parents, or at least one parent are US citizens. My sister was born in Germany in 1946 since her mother and father were there for the Occupation after WW2. Dad in the army, Mom and I as camp followers. She has always been a US Citizen. There may be issues for children whose parent is not in the military, stationed overseas, but you don't have to be born in the USA, its territories, or naturalized to be a citizen.
There is also the issue of children born overseas whose parents, or at least one parent are US citizens. My sister was born in Germany in 1946 since her mother and father were there for the Occupation after WW2. Dad in the army, Mom and I as camp followers. She has always been a US Citizen. There may be issues for children whose parent is not in the military, stationed overseas, but you don't have to be born in the USA, its territories, or naturalized to be a citizen.
True but the rules on that have changed repeatedly over the years.
Originally for people born overseas to qualify for birthright citizenship both parents had to be citizens.
In 1855 it was extended to include children born overseas with a citizen father and non-citizen mother.
In 1934 it was extended to include children born overseas with a citizen mother and non-citizen father.
From 1940 to 1978 there was a "retention requirement" that the overseas born citizen had to live a certain number of year in the US before a certain age or their citizenship would lapse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States#Statute.2C_by_parentage