I've commented on this before, but I think that there is some possibility that soldiers at the front, especially in Africa, might through steady desertion, merge with local communities, or even form their own. Even if they start as loyal and ideologically 'clean', war often doesn't allow you to leave it with the same perspective as you entered it. Some might even use being sent to the front line as an escape, since it's far harder to monitor troops or police their thoughts in the chaos of battle. Maybe that's what they're actually fighting on the equatorial front. An army of natives, pre revolution survivors and escapees.
Nationalism presumably could, more than language. This is why BB and Ingsoc are described as explicitly English, whereas Airstrip 1 is a deliberately de-nationalized name for England (and leaving you no way of really knowing whether Scotland, Ireland etc. as the previous proper nouns for identifiable places are included when people use the noun Airstrip 1; they are unlikely to have responded in the same way to Ingsoc, imo). Ingsoc needs to feel local, to be a continuation of English society, while the other areas could just continue their own society with their own Soc identities, so you could have Brazsoc, for example, which would include explicitly Brazilian social mores, or MexSoc, but just made scarier.
The true horror of this story is we the readers walk away not knowing what is truth or party lies ourselves. We aren't much better off than the proles as regards to having access to solid, reliable information about the outside world.
I really wish there was more fan fiction set in the world of 1984 that worked to expand the lore. Like an unofficial sequel set decades later (Twenty-Twenty-Four)
I think the problem with Big Brother maintaining control indefinitely is more fundamental. First of all, human error will inevitably creep into the system simply because it is made up of human beings. Every mistake will weaken the system. In time the problem will be noticed, but routing something like that out is historically anything but easy. At the same time, while any reforms to course correct what has gone wrong (from the Party's pov) does not prevent tiny human errors happening all the time anyway. On top of this time and history sooner or later throws up wild cards which profoundly alter human societies, no matter how stable. I know many believe our technology insulates us from this but in truth that is not really the case. Disease and weather both impact us constantly. Covid was nowhere near as terrible as Spanish Flu or the Black Death, yet we are still feeling the disruptions to our entire economic and social systems, will be feeling them for quite some time. Such things can be quite bizarre as in the case of "sweating sickness" which impacted almost entirely upper class English for some as-yet-unexplained reason. Given the Inner Party is made up of so very few individuals, a plague could pretty easily cripple INGSOC if it simply killed enough members of that group. Complex economic systems are susceptible to all kinds of problems including earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, blizzards, etc. Even diseases that only impact plants or animals can and have devastated nations. Every effort to meet such challenges opens up change as well as human error--even in terms of simple (and often complex) unintended consequences. Sometimes natural disasters stack up, one on top of another, which deal blows to society difficult if not impossible to simply counter. My point is--anything composed of human beings has a human life cycle. Oceania is as yet young, but it must grow old and eventually die. Because it is human, even if it tries desperately not to be.
Like the quote from The Who "meet the new boss, same as the old boss", often regimes change characteristics and evolve and adapt but remain similar in character. The Russian Empire was totalitarian, succeeded by the communist USSR, which itself was succeeded by autocratic Putin. I think the future of Oceania would be similar.
@@Houseofweird I am going to be a bit pedantic. The Russian Empire was not by any definition Totalitarian. It was authoritarian, to be sure, while the Soviet Union was at times Totalitarian (especially under Stalin), and the government of Russia became authoritarian under Putin. Totalitarian states have a specific character--namely, that everyone is required to take sides and be on the side of the government in all circumstances. This means when you write a love poem, you have to mention the Dictator or King or whoever in that poem. This was not true during the Russian Empire nor under Putin. It is rarely true, because Totalitarian governments are very very hard to maintain. But yeah, civil liberties do not simply spring into life just because a dictatorial regime falls. Especially when we are looking at more than a generation under someone's fist.
What makes it easier for all of the superstates to control their people in the world of 1984, is that the brief nuclear war that took place. More than likely had an additional consequence, in that it prevented a considerable amount of technological innovation from ever taking place. Unlike in our timeline where the cold war and the limited scale of the conflict, allowed for lower risk competition between major powers, like the space race etc. When you take that into account, that means that more than likely in the world of 1984 space exploration probably never took place. Since any development of rocket technology would have been used only for military purposes, limiting any innovation that took place more than likely only to the creation of longer range missiles and fighter jets etc. Also if anything like the internet had ever come into existence, it would only be available to the inner and outer party members of each superstate with some limitations for outer party members. This would Make the surveillance state that exists possible, providing the means to link telescreens and other hidden recording devices to the authorities in each superstate.
I agree, the limited nuclear war of the 1950s is key to the world of 1984. If WW2 is effectively the founding myth of the modern capitalist West or modern autocratic Russia (democratic only in the loosest sense), how much more would a limited nuclear war with all the suffering, grief and privation experienced by survivors provide a foundation for Oceanians' understanding of their world?
I'm fron south america. Certainly there is a feeling against the anglo-sphere, is generalized in the whole spanish-speacking countries, so I always wonder how was it possible, how did ingsoc achive to conquered the andes, the patagonia, the amazon. I think that the national revolutionary movements such as PRI, MNR, peronism, APRA etc became a crucial key allies for ingsoc, probably the original oceania was a federation of totalitarian english and spanish speaker regimes and aftdr the rise of the big brother everything reduces to ingsoc, there is no APRA, Peronism, MNR or PRI anymore.
Another commentator had the thinking that Oceania is divied into local areas. So there wouldn't be an INGSOC for South America, it would be something specific to the country (We don't even know if INGSOC extends to Scotland, Wales and Ireland, North or South America, they may have their own localised version of what SOC.)
Firstly: thanks for such an insightful video. Indeed, it is interesting to ask how an English empire manages to control Latin America. Besides. It strikes me that Oceania is extremely decentalised, especially in comparasion to OTL totalitarian states like Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union. What if regional party branches started to compete with each other instead of cooperating? What if, for example the American West Coast party decided that they do not want to give something to the East coast? What if the Airstrip One attempted a 'brexit' of sorts, do as to keep their resources for local party? What if local party branches started to develop their own regional versions of INGSOC, which - given time - would lead to shisms and squables over 'who is the TRUE ingsoc?!?!?!'. In short: what is keeping such a decentralised totalitarian state together? And yes - the eternal war is probably the biggest part of it, but still. Oceania in Argentina is going to be different from Oceania in London, no matter what the party does.
yeah i feel it is inevitable for different politites to eventually come into heads, not for ideological reasons of disagreeing with big brother, but because even if I cant think of resist the party, I am the party here and I am looking after my own interests which dont align with you taking my shit
I’m Brazilian historian who specializes in Latin American history. I believe that Latin Americans would actually love the party and its ideals, especially if they played well the role of charismatic, populist leader of the Big Brother. I can imagine the party allowing the lower classes to continue with their local traditions such a music (samba, tango etc), football, and a lot of alcohol, which would allow them to remain content. The middle class could easily be appeased with bureaucratic jobs, in which little is done, but having a lot of benefits. Latin Americans wouldn’t mind the huge economic gap between the small elite and the vast majority of the population (it already does that in real life to this very day). I could also imagine the party creating some form of “tolerated” Catholicism to appease the masses, just real-life China has done. I can only think of Latin America rebelling if a faction within the party initiated the rebellion. This is what happened in practice in the region since its independence.
Do you think that the Party would eventually erode South American culture (I know it's a very broad umbrella but bear with me)? It would definitely be much harder than more urban countries like the US and UK, but I think the party would go through with it's erosion just because, by the time of 1984 there is so little tolerance of thought crime. I do agree that your idea of South American rule under Oceania would initially be just as you described.
A simpler and more horrifying possibility is that Eurasia or Eastasia, whichever at the time had always been the enemy-or, more likely, Oceania itself-had simply nuked any oldspeak unspeakers
It is my theory that the party controls essentially the entire globe and tells each part of the empire that they are near the front line of battle, but just far enough off to not see direct combat. So the people in say, Argentina, are told that they are a part of a grand Spanish speaking empire, with parts of Brazil or perhaps the Falklands being enemy territory responsible for the bombings that inevitable happen.
I think a more realistic geopolitical scenario would be something akin to the USA's Monroe Doctrine with Latin America viewed as part of Oceania's imperial sphere of influence rather than direct territorial holdings. Probably the most realistic part of Goldstein's book, is the claim that geographical and material constraints mean even an alliance of two superstates would be incapable of conquering and occupying the third. Oceania has the added weakness of being spread across four seperate continents with a similar, internal calculation being in place for South America.
In regards to language, English in Portuguese (my native language as a brazilian) is Ingles, which is interesting given the party's name is Ingsoc, and not Engsoc. Orwell also participated in the Spanish civil war so perhaps he wanted Latin America to be included in a subtle way
Thanks for covering this theory, Id never really heard of it but I had a feeling that South and Latin America could be a problem for Ingsoc. I still think there'd be problems. Folks are pretty religious down there, and pretty proud. The idea of "hispanicizing" Ingsoc to reduce rebellions could dissuade a quite a lot but looking through Latin American history ya notice a pattern of rebellions. At the very least the coast lines, major port cities, and critical river ways would be controlled. The further into the conrinent the more awkward things become. Geography, poor infrastructure, and the lack of a presentable threat could also be a huge issue. But the coast line would be controlled. Religion and tradition are pretty big down there, so if anything itd be some jungle-maddened Jesuit than a Che Guevara
It is interesting though to imagine a Brazilian 1984 with a Miguel Silva who works at the Rio De Janeiro branch of the Ministry of truth. Maybe his job is translating English articles into new-speak Portuguese for outer party member consumption. Maybe he has to use double think because Oceania is a Portuguese dominated nation that is formed around Brazilsoc. Maybe his version of Goldstein’s book confirms that Oceania is English dominated.
The bigger problem is trying to control South America to begin with. With all it's jungles, forests and far out of reach locations many rebels can and have used to hide. Many settlements spread out in hard to reach locations, It could be a bed for rebellion, the countries there all full of history of it as well. The same could be said for North America as well in terms of terrain. In fact from looking at Oceania the more you read and look into it the more you realise it's world makes no sense. Why haven't the middle east and Africa pieces not united or formed powerful blocs? Why wouldn't the three super powers control those resource rich areas and it makes no sense three great powers would not try to take each over or try to internally cause chaos in each other.
I dont know how they even conquered it to begin with All that jungle warfare would be a pain in the ass and getting rid of the jungle would only result in more urban warfare and the global environment going to shit
It would be much easier to keep all the provinces isolated with their own languages. All the party really cares about is power, if it has to dress it up, it will. No one in the world really knows anything beyond their own tiny area and expertise.
Paused at 5:34 for the map. Unless Eurasia is weak defensively, and East Asia a powerhouse of advanced military hardwares, it's hard to imagine how "constant war economy*" policies haven't turned "Airstrip One" into uninhabitable wastelands? [* see "Military Keynesianism" at Wikipedia] It is so vulnerable, compared to the Oceans & "disputed territories" that buffer the rest of Oceania; in my mind, much like the French and German border has entire valleys that have changed hands in the last two hundred years, so to could Airstrip One be under control of Eurasia "some day" (?). And another idea: IngSoc in Brazil would control air bases that offer closer access to bolster the southern African Oceania territories (South Africa plus), than from A1 or North America? Hmmmm
America, like Britain, we're the core territories of Oceania. The British Empire and America united to create Oceania before the IngSoc took over. South America were invaded and integrated after that
For more on how Oceania works, read Theory And Practice Of Oligarchical Collectivism (the book within the book in 1984). It is THE lore dump of the book. The powers that run this channel need to do a deep dive into it. A solid 30 minutes would be double plus good. Please.
id argue that because the state is huge, maybe not during 1984 but eventually those regional governors would probably break down in intrests a bit and could come to break with eachother, leading to revolt and civil war. that you can doublethink yourself to saftey to ignore power imbalances is well and good but eventually i feel different parts of the inner party and outer party is going to get pissed at eachother
The fact that South America starts the 20th Century far less developed and internationally connected could make it easier to control, with local communication and transportation infrastructure easier to police. I would picture Latin America being agrarian, possibly a source of conscript soldiers who need never be deployed alongside English speaking units. Cuba and Venezuela are good real world examples of how enduring Leftist dictatorships have been in the region.
A question I have is could you escape Big Brother? Could someone more some remote like the Scottish Highlands, the plain states of America or Canada, or Alaska and if you keep your nose clean and self-sufficient you could live with some amount of freedom
I'm curious. Do you think the Idealogy in South America would be also INSOC? INSOC stands for 'English Socialism' but wouldn't that also give the latin american population the feeling of a foreign Occupation?
I actually find it pretty hard for the Party to have extended all of its control to all of Oceania. I do think that the Anglosphere did unite in this timeline and that the Soviets did steamroll continental Europe and that there is a schizo Mao in China, but I don't think that the Party is in control of all Oceania. A schizo ideology, like Ingsoc, had the social climate necessary to take over war torn and nuclear bombed Britain, but not over North America, even if a nuke or two might've landed in Hawaii or even the Pacific Coast. I once saw a video where Ingsoc is only in Great Britain and that its perpetual war is with Irish Freedom Fighters. A sort of IRA during the Troubles but if they were actually good guys, not sectarian violents against other sectarian violents. South America, the continent that to this day still is the best one set to survive a nuclear apocalypse, just search about Ashes of Libertad, would've never supported Ingsoc, in the same way as the US and Canada. About South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand I don't really know what to say.
Brazilians don't even speak Spanish. Imagine making us speak new speak. We are a total different culture inside LATAM, we have nothing to do with everyone else
Empires typically evolved along climates similar to the one of the capital / origin, so Oceania controlling the entirety of the Americas does seem fishy
South America being included within Oceania is a weak point within the lore. It doesn't make sense for a political movement from the Anglo-American sphere to be able to take over the entirety of the Latin sphere. It should have been the fourth world totalitarian superpower, also in vacillating alliance with Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.
It seems like East Asia would have much more culutural and linguistic diversity that would make it harder to unifry, you have Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Mongolians, Filipinos, all with their own distinct language and culture.
Half of South America speaks portuguese. Brasil repreents 50% of the population AND territory of south America. We are the majority in south America. Porrgurse would be the main language
South and Central America is not now and never has been a "Spanish speaking Culture". The largest single country in South America and its largest single source of resources is Brazil, which was colonised by the Portuguese, and, ever since, the official language of Brazil is Portuguese. Now, I'm aware that all White English people are Racist to their core and are thus utterly unaware of any countries which are not English speaking, but other than a small fraction of time where Portugal and Spain were jointly ruled by the King of Spain, Portugal has always been independent of Spain. Furthermore, Spanish as a language is actually closer to Italian than it is to Portuguese. So, please take down this (based on falsehood) video and stop pretending that the Spanish speaking Che Guevara might be operating out of the Portuguese Brazilian Amazon...
To be honest, you could have done away with the part about all White English People being racist. That would only serve to drive away curious minds who genuinely want to learn.
I've commented on this before, but I think that there is some possibility that soldiers at the front, especially in Africa, might through steady desertion, merge with local communities, or even form their own. Even if they start as loyal and ideologically 'clean', war often doesn't allow you to leave it with the same perspective as you entered it. Some might even use being sent to the front line as an escape, since it's far harder to monitor troops or police their thoughts in the chaos of battle. Maybe that's what they're actually fighting on the equatorial front. An army of natives, pre revolution survivors and escapees.
Nationalism presumably could, more than language. This is why BB and Ingsoc are described as explicitly English, whereas Airstrip 1 is a deliberately de-nationalized name for England (and leaving you no way of really knowing whether Scotland, Ireland etc. as the previous proper nouns for identifiable places are included when people use the noun Airstrip 1; they are unlikely to have responded in the same way to Ingsoc, imo). Ingsoc needs to feel local, to be a continuation of English society, while the other areas could just continue their own society with their own Soc identities, so you could have Brazsoc, for example, which would include explicitly Brazilian social mores, or MexSoc, but just made scarier.
The true horror of this story is we the readers walk away not knowing what is truth or party lies ourselves. We aren't much better off than the proles as regards to having access to solid, reliable information about the outside world.
Most not all. Im one of the very few who’s able to think objectively about shit and not just copy what others believe
I was thinking the same, like the Party may not even exist outside of England, or even London (Airstrip One) as far as the citizens know…
I really wish there was more fan fiction set in the world of 1984 that worked to expand the lore. Like an unofficial sequel set decades later (Twenty-Twenty-Four)
Double plus good as always, comrade.
I think the problem with Big Brother maintaining control indefinitely is more fundamental. First of all, human error will inevitably creep into the system simply because it is made up of human beings. Every mistake will weaken the system. In time the problem will be noticed, but routing something like that out is historically anything but easy. At the same time, while any reforms to course correct what has gone wrong (from the Party's pov) does not prevent tiny human errors happening all the time anyway.
On top of this time and history sooner or later throws up wild cards which profoundly alter human societies, no matter how stable. I know many believe our technology insulates us from this but in truth that is not really the case. Disease and weather both impact us constantly. Covid was nowhere near as terrible as Spanish Flu or the Black Death, yet we are still feeling the disruptions to our entire economic and social systems, will be feeling them for quite some time. Such things can be quite bizarre as in the case of "sweating sickness" which impacted almost entirely upper class English for some as-yet-unexplained reason. Given the Inner Party is made up of so very few individuals, a plague could pretty easily cripple INGSOC if it simply killed enough members of that group.
Complex economic systems are susceptible to all kinds of problems including earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, blizzards, etc. Even diseases that only impact plants or animals can and have devastated nations. Every effort to meet such challenges opens up change as well as human error--even in terms of simple (and often complex) unintended consequences. Sometimes natural disasters stack up, one on top of another, which deal blows to society difficult if not impossible to simply counter.
My point is--anything composed of human beings has a human life cycle. Oceania is as yet young, but it must grow old and eventually die. Because it is human, even if it tries desperately not to be.
Like the quote from The Who "meet the new boss, same as the old boss", often regimes change characteristics and evolve and adapt but remain similar in character. The Russian Empire was totalitarian, succeeded by the communist USSR, which itself was succeeded by autocratic Putin. I think the future of Oceania would be similar.
@@Houseofweird I am going to be a bit pedantic. The Russian Empire was not by any definition Totalitarian. It was authoritarian, to be sure, while the Soviet Union was at times Totalitarian (especially under Stalin), and the government of Russia became authoritarian under Putin. Totalitarian states have a specific character--namely, that everyone is required to take sides and be on the side of the government in all circumstances. This means when you write a love poem, you have to mention the Dictator or King or whoever in that poem. This was not true during the Russian Empire nor under Putin. It is rarely true, because Totalitarian governments are very very hard to maintain.
But yeah, civil liberties do not simply spring into life just because a dictatorial regime falls. Especially when we are looking at more than a generation under someone's fist.
What makes it easier for all of the superstates to control their people in the world of 1984, is that the brief nuclear war that took place. More than likely had an additional consequence, in that it prevented a considerable amount of technological innovation from ever taking place. Unlike in our timeline where the cold war and the limited scale of the conflict, allowed for lower risk competition between major powers, like the space race etc. When you take that into account, that means that more than likely in the world of 1984 space exploration probably never took place. Since any development of rocket technology would have been used only for military purposes, limiting any innovation that took place more than likely only to the creation of longer range missiles and fighter jets etc. Also if anything like the internet had ever come into existence, it would only be available to the inner and outer party members of each superstate with some limitations for outer party members. This would Make the surveillance state that exists possible, providing the means to link telescreens and other hidden recording devices to the authorities in each superstate.
I agree, the limited nuclear war of the 1950s is key to the world of 1984. If WW2 is effectively the founding myth of the modern capitalist West or modern autocratic Russia (democratic only in the loosest sense), how much more would a limited nuclear war with all the suffering, grief and privation experienced by survivors provide a foundation for Oceanians' understanding of their world?
I'm fron south america. Certainly there is a feeling against the anglo-sphere, is generalized in the whole spanish-speacking countries, so I always wonder how was it possible, how did ingsoc achive to conquered the andes, the patagonia, the amazon. I think that the national revolutionary movements such as PRI, MNR, peronism, APRA etc became a crucial key allies for ingsoc, probably the original oceania was a federation of totalitarian english and spanish speaker regimes and aftdr the rise of the big brother everything reduces to ingsoc, there is no APRA, Peronism, MNR or PRI anymore.
Another commentator had the thinking that Oceania is divied into local areas. So there wouldn't be an INGSOC for South America, it would be something specific to the country (We don't even know if INGSOC extends to Scotland, Wales and Ireland, North or South America, they may have their own localised version of what SOC.)
Firstly: thanks for such an insightful video. Indeed, it is interesting to ask how an English empire manages to control Latin America.
Besides. It strikes me that Oceania is extremely decentalised, especially in comparasion to OTL totalitarian states like Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union. What if regional party branches started to compete with each other instead of cooperating? What if, for example the American West Coast party decided that they do not want to give something to the East coast? What if the Airstrip One attempted a 'brexit' of sorts, do as to keep their resources for local party? What if local party branches started to develop their own regional versions of INGSOC, which - given time - would lead to shisms and squables over 'who is the TRUE ingsoc?!?!?!'.
In short: what is keeping such a decentralised totalitarian state together? And yes - the eternal war is probably the biggest part of it, but still. Oceania in Argentina is going to be different from Oceania in London, no matter what the party does.
yeah i feel it is inevitable for different politites to eventually come into heads, not for ideological reasons of disagreeing with big brother, but because even if I cant think of resist the party, I am the party here and I am looking after my own interests which dont align with you taking my shit
I’m Brazilian historian who specializes in Latin American history. I believe that Latin Americans would actually love the party and its ideals, especially if they played well the role of charismatic, populist leader of the Big Brother. I can imagine the party allowing the lower classes to continue with their local traditions such a music (samba, tango etc), football, and a lot of alcohol, which would allow them to remain content. The middle class could easily be appeased with bureaucratic jobs, in which little is done, but having a lot of benefits. Latin Americans wouldn’t mind the huge economic gap between the small elite and the vast majority of the population (it already does that in real life to this very day).
I could also imagine the party creating some form of “tolerated” Catholicism to appease the masses, just real-life China has done.
I can only think of Latin America rebelling if a faction within the party initiated the rebellion. This is what happened in practice in the region since its independence.
“It already does that in real life to very day.” - this hurt me in my soul.😂
Do you think that the Party would eventually erode South American culture (I know it's a very broad umbrella but bear with me)? It would definitely be much harder than more urban countries like the US and UK, but I think the party would go through with it's erosion just because, by the time of 1984 there is so little tolerance of thought crime. I do agree that your idea of South American rule under Oceania would initially be just as you described.
A simpler and more horrifying possibility is that Eurasia or Eastasia, whichever at the time had always been the enemy-or, more likely, Oceania itself-had simply nuked any oldspeak unspeakers
It is my theory that the party controls essentially the entire globe and tells each part of the empire that they are near the front line of battle, but just far enough off to not see direct combat. So the people in say, Argentina, are told that they are a part of a grand Spanish speaking empire, with parts of Brazil or perhaps the Falklands being enemy territory responsible for the bombings that inevitable happen.
I think a more realistic geopolitical scenario would be something akin to the USA's Monroe Doctrine with Latin America viewed as part of Oceania's imperial sphere of influence rather than direct territorial holdings.
Probably the most realistic part of Goldstein's book, is the claim that geographical and material constraints mean even an alliance of two superstates would be incapable of conquering and occupying the third. Oceania has the added weakness of being spread across four seperate continents with a similar, internal calculation being in place for South America.
In regards to language, English in Portuguese (my native language as a brazilian) is Ingles, which is interesting given the party's name is Ingsoc, and not Engsoc. Orwell also participated in the Spanish civil war so perhaps he wanted Latin America to be included in a subtle way
I would love to see a video about where Winston's and Julia's meeting places in the countryside might have been within Airstrip One.
Thanks for covering this theory, Id never really heard of it but I had a feeling that South and Latin America could be a problem for Ingsoc.
I still think there'd be problems. Folks are pretty religious down there, and pretty proud. The idea of "hispanicizing" Ingsoc to reduce rebellions could dissuade a quite a lot but looking through Latin American history ya notice a pattern of rebellions.
At the very least the coast lines, major port cities, and critical river ways would be controlled. The further into the conrinent the more awkward things become.
Geography, poor infrastructure, and the lack of a presentable threat could also be a huge issue. But the coast line would be controlled. Religion and tradition are pretty big down there, so if anything itd be some jungle-maddened Jesuit than a Che Guevara
What about Quebec? They either gone forcefully integrated or like a zone where france is still used?
It is interesting though to imagine a Brazilian 1984 with a Miguel Silva who works at the Rio De Janeiro branch of the Ministry of truth. Maybe his job is translating English articles into new-speak Portuguese for outer party member consumption. Maybe he has to use double think because Oceania is a Portuguese dominated nation that is formed around Brazilsoc. Maybe his version of Goldstein’s book confirms that Oceania is English dominated.
Rio de janeiro wasn't Brazil's capital at 1984 lol. Brasília was our Capital
The bigger problem is trying to control South America to begin with. With all it's jungles, forests and far out of reach locations many rebels can and have used to hide. Many settlements spread out in hard to reach locations, It could be a bed for rebellion, the countries there all full of history of it as well. The same could be said for North America as well in terms of terrain.
In fact from looking at Oceania the more you read and look into it the more you realise it's world makes no sense. Why haven't the middle east and Africa pieces not united or formed powerful blocs? Why wouldn't the three super powers control those resource rich areas and it makes no sense three great powers would not try to take each over or try to internally cause chaos in each other.
I dont know how they even conquered it to begin with
All that jungle warfare would be a pain in the ass and getting rid of the jungle would only result in more urban warfare and the global environment going to shit
It would be much easier to keep all the provinces isolated with their own languages. All the party really cares about is power, if it has to dress it up, it will.
No one in the world really knows anything beyond their own tiny area and expertise.
Paused at 5:34 for the map. Unless Eurasia is weak defensively, and East Asia a powerhouse of advanced military hardwares, it's hard to imagine how "constant war economy*" policies haven't turned "Airstrip One" into uninhabitable wastelands?
[* see "Military Keynesianism" at Wikipedia]
It is so vulnerable, compared to the Oceans & "disputed territories" that buffer the rest of Oceania; in my mind, much like the French and German border has entire valleys that have changed hands in the last two hundred years, so to could Airstrip One be under control of Eurasia "some day" (?).
And another idea: IngSoc in Brazil would control air bases that offer closer access to bolster the southern African Oceania territories (South Africa plus), than from A1 or North America?
Hmmmm
The way the party probably fell is due to too many rebellions across the vast region of Oceania which caused the economy to collapse
It's likely that INGSOC goes by a different name in its non-anglophone territories as their only goal is holding onto power at all costs.
Ha. Che Guevara would be a leading figure in South America’s El Bloque Interior, not a “rebel.”
If Americans couldnt resist, then nobody can really.
America, like Britain, we're the core territories of Oceania. The British Empire and America united to create Oceania before the IngSoc took over. South America were invaded and integrated after that
@@adinarapratama5607 Yeah, like I said....if Americans couldn't resist this type of tyranny then the rest of the world most certainly can't.
@@akneegrow6152 why tho? What does America has that others doesn't
@@adinarapratama5607 Guns in civilian hands obviously.
For more on how Oceania works, read Theory And Practice Of Oligarchical Collectivism (the book within the book in 1984). It is THE lore dump of the book.
The powers that run this channel need to do a deep dive into it. A solid 30 minutes would be double plus good.
Please.
id argue that because the state is huge, maybe not during 1984 but eventually those regional governors would probably break down in intrests a bit and could come to break with eachother, leading to revolt and civil war. that you can doublethink yourself to saftey to ignore power imbalances is well and good but eventually i feel different parts of the inner party and outer party is going to get pissed at eachother
ive neer read 1984 but a hypothesis I came up with is that there is just more proles in those regions
Wait as they form their own superstate under "Gran Hermano"
yes rallies in Brazil would have Goldstein speaking perfect Portuguese or rallies in Mexico would have him speak perfect Spanish
Video Idea:
Is eurasia and eastasia better than oceania, or are they equally worse?
Is the same thing
The fact that South America starts the 20th Century far less developed and internationally connected could make it easier to control, with local communication and transportation infrastructure easier to police. I would picture Latin America being agrarian, possibly a source of conscript soldiers who need never be deployed alongside English speaking units. Cuba and Venezuela are good real world examples of how enduring Leftist dictatorships have been in the region.
An important point is that this is a society after widespread nuclear war.
Please make a video on the book the managerial revolution. It's what inspired 1984.
Before joining the Outer Party he was Quentin Crisp.
IngSoc ❌
LatSoc✅
BraSoc (Brazilian Socialism) 😉
A question I have is could you escape Big Brother? Could someone more some remote like the Scottish Highlands, the plain states of America or Canada, or Alaska and if you keep your nose clean and self-sufficient you could live with some amount of freedom
I'm curious. Do you think the Idealogy in South America would be also INSOC? INSOC stands for 'English Socialism' but wouldn't that also give the latin american population the feeling of a foreign Occupation?
They condition the population to believe the “English” part means the place of origin
I do not believe Oceania to be this big, as if the party would lie about History but not Geography. Please.
I actually find it pretty hard for the Party to have extended all of its control to all of Oceania. I do think that the Anglosphere did unite in this timeline and that the Soviets did steamroll continental Europe and that there is a schizo Mao in China, but I don't think that the Party is in control of all Oceania. A schizo ideology, like Ingsoc, had the social climate necessary to take over war torn and nuclear bombed Britain, but not over North America, even if a nuke or two might've landed in Hawaii or even the Pacific Coast. I once saw a video where Ingsoc is only in Great Britain and that its perpetual war is with Irish Freedom Fighters. A sort of IRA during the Troubles but if they were actually good guys, not sectarian violents against other sectarian violents. South America, the continent that to this day still is the best one set to survive a nuclear apocalypse, just search about Ashes of Libertad, would've never supported Ingsoc, in the same way as the US and Canada. About South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand I don't really know what to say.
Brazilians don't even speak Spanish. Imagine making us speak new speak. We are a total different culture inside LATAM, we have nothing to do with everyone else
Every province is told they are the Capital, none are under the heel of another influencer. They probably speak Esperanto Newspeak lol
Empires typically evolved along climates similar to the one of the capital / origin, so Oceania controlling the entirety of the Americas does seem fishy
Would like to a video about INGSOC army
Did this dude read the subreddit? I swear I asked that same question
Wonder what hapens to isolated tribes
Great video, comrade. 🫡
Great propaganda comrade. People would believe that Oceania is anything bigger than Britain Island (and near islands).
is anyone else gonna aknoledge the [low hanging fruit] pun here, (198lore)
Based spanish flag
South America being included within Oceania is a weak point within the lore. It doesn't make sense for a political movement from the Anglo-American sphere to be able to take over the entirety of the Latin sphere. It should have been the fourth world totalitarian superpower, also in vacillating alliance with Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.
It seems like East Asia would have much more culutural and linguistic diversity that would make it harder to unifry, you have Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Mongolians, Filipinos, all with their own distinct language and culture.
Half of South America speaks portuguese. Brasil repreents 50% of the population AND territory of south America. We are the majority in south America. Porrgurse would be the main language
If you can find the proper incitament, you can actually make people adopt a new language. They did it in Israel.
South and Central America is not now and never has been a "Spanish speaking Culture".
The largest single country in South America and its largest single source of resources is Brazil, which was colonised by the Portuguese, and, ever since, the official language of Brazil is Portuguese.
Now, I'm aware that all White English people are Racist to their core and are thus utterly unaware of any countries which are not English speaking, but other than a small fraction of time where Portugal and Spain were jointly ruled by the King of Spain, Portugal has always been independent of Spain. Furthermore, Spanish as a language is actually closer to Italian than it is to Portuguese.
So, please take down this (based on falsehood) video and stop pretending that the Spanish speaking Che Guevara might be operating out of the Portuguese Brazilian Amazon...
To be honest, you could have done away with the part about all White English People being racist. That would only serve to drive away curious minds who genuinely want to learn.