The Trouble With Peace

Having once again fallen into chaos, the Circle of the World returns to the Age of Madness as though the wars have been won for now, Joe Abercrombie shows us that an absence of conflict can be as much of a problem itself. This is indeed The Trouble With Peace.

Picking up almost directly after the end of A Little Hatred we once again join our new cast of characters in the world of the First Law. Leo dan Brock is basking in the victories he has achieved in the last novel, Savine dan Glokta is alternating between her life collapsing around her and making something of herself, Prince Orso is finding terrifying new responsibilities while feeling stuck in a moribund power structure, Rikke struggles with the Long Eye, Broad doesn't know whether he is a man of peace or war, Vick struggles with her role in the Union, and Clover is trying to stay alive beneath the capricious and violent shadow of Stour Nightfall. 

From goodreads.com

I admit to not quite knowing what to think going into this book. It raised the stakes in a way I hadn't seen used by Abercrombie before. He wasn't giving us any indication of an imminent war at the end of the last book, the status quo seemed to be god. Of course, by the end of the first third of the book that's all been thrown out the window as men's ambitions are never satiated!

This book was, compared to much of Abercrombie's other work, a sort of slow burn. The machinations of our protagonists built over time, and the results definitely took time to get to the payoff. The final act of this book though, was spectacular, but more on that in a moment.

Savine dan Glokta, Leo dan Brock, and Prince Orso arguably took center stage for this piece. They had the most view point issues by far, and over all, managed to drive the plot almost in spite of the presence of other characters. I do think that this series has, overall, shaped up to almost be about the main characters of Savine, Leo, Orso, and Rikke, with the others being more of a supporting cast to these four characters machinations.

That said, this book was the most political and bathed in conspiracy and backstabbing since arguably Last Argument of Kings and Best Served Cold, and it had many call outs to Best Served Cold which absolutely endeared it to me. Those two books contained some of Abercrombie's best pushes towards political backstabbing and personal vengeance, as well as amazing battle scenes. Though The Trouble With Peace is a lot less bloody than those two, it doesn't disappoint when it comes to battles or treachery. The slow burn plot does an excellent job of giving us reasons to root for both sides of the emerging battle lines, and it makes it quite impressive as the two factions end up coalescing around various characters, and the lengths each character is willing to go to because each character believes so firmly in their cause.

I believe that this book works well because A Little Hatred built up these characters so that we could care about them. That they now have competing ambitions in a time of peace makes it so much more tense as you get led along through conspiracy, webs of lies, and competing ideas and ambitions which pits these men directly against one another. It means that the stakes are very real, and as the book comes blazing towards its conclusion you get a number of shocks and feel real tension for our main characters as they come up against obstacles both on and off the field of battle. I won't spoil where that battle takes place, but boy does it take everything Abercrombie has built on since the last few installments and really make it shine.

The finale honestly blew me away. It combined some of Abercrombie's best work in writing well plotted violence, the tension he can create for both combatants and non-combatants, and the sheer pull of characters. He shows the push and pull of a battlefield in ways that, quite honestly, many people who write military fiction often fail to do. The ground pounders view to the commanders view lets you see the chaos, the violence, and the blood and mud. I loved that about his writing and anyone who loved his standalone The Heroes won't be disappointed by what he manages to craft here. Then the aftermath of the battle, and the actions of the victors, just adds an entirely new layer of excellence.

Personally, I don't feel this will become my favorite book of his. It takes much of what he does well and combines it, but I do think that some of the pacing felt off. The characters and their flawed actions were all very well executed, but I don't think it had the same stakes as say, Best Served Cold or Before They Are Hanged. While it is an excellent middle book, which reintroduces us to some of our favorite characters from the previous series, I did honestly think something was missing overall. Perhaps it was that the main four I highlighted felt like they received more attention so that the secondary characters all felt like a supporting cast where in A Little Hatred they played more central roles and had more agency. It also might be that I felt that a few of the revelations were not as well foreshadowed as they might have been.

All that being said, I sincerely enjoyed this book and roared right through it in a couple days. Fast paced and it never once drags and gives you a bit of everything you enjoy about Abercrombie. Characters are maimed, people claim the ashes of victory, and many new and scary revelations are brought to the forefront. It is just more proof that Abercrombie remains an excellent writer.

The Way of Kings

Way back in 2012 I picked up The Way of Kings by Brandon Sanderson. I saw the cover and, on a whim, I snatched it up. I had no idea then that I would leap down into the world of Roshar with both feet and not once look back as I rode the storms into the greater world of Brandon Sanderson's cosmere.

Now for full disclosure, I actually had to put this book down the first time I started reading it. Brandon Sanderson does an amazing job at capturing a character who is burnt out, facing depression, and on the verge of a total breakdown. It was so well done that I, who was at the time facing one of my own, was unable to read about a character who had similar problems. Boy am I glad that I picked it up again though because that put me in a much better mood. I've re-read the book three times now, and I have thoroughly enjoyed it each time. I firmly feel that, to date, Way of Kings is the best book he has yet written.

A copy which owes me nothing

The Way of Kings is the opening to Brandon's epic series, The Stormlight Archive. It is projected to be a ten book long undertaking with two distinct arcs of five books each. I say these things in advance just so people know why I'm going to be gushing about the cosmere for, oh, say the next decade or so.

But what is this story? Way of Kings is set on the world of Roshar, far unlike anything you've ever seen before. The single continent is perpetually lashed by highstorms, hurricane like storms which come randomly sweeping east to west, scouring the land and creating a landscape and creatures we would find wholly unnatural. Grass lives in tiny holes in the ground that it retreats into when the winds rise. Trees will hug in their branches to stay alive, and animals have shells and other methods of hiding and surviving which will spare them the worst of that damage.

Humans too have to adapt to survive this world. They build in the shelter of natural concentrations of rocks, lees and valleys which hide their homes from the worst of the winds. It's a world very different from our own.

Far in the past, humanity was cast from the Tranquiline Halls by the Voidbringers, demons who hated humanity. Humanity had the Ten Heralds who led them against Desolations where the Voidbringers would invade and ravage Roshar. Protected by the Knights Radiant, the Heralds and Humanity banished the Voidbringers and the Heralds left the world to bring the fight to the enemy in the afterlife. However, the Knights Radiant later betrayed humanity, and so left behind their great weapons, shardplate and shardblades. 

In the present day, four thousand years after Aharietiam, the Last Desolation, the nation of Alethkar is at war. Their king has been assassinated by the mysterious Parshendi people, and so they have sworn the Vengeance Pact to bring the assassins to justice. It is a brutal war which has lasted for six years.

Roshar

We follow three characters, the disgraced warrior Kaladin, the warlord Dalinar, and the scholar to be, Shallan. Each of these three characters begin in disparate stories, separated by geography, motivation and class. One is a slave, one an impoverished noble daughter, and the other head of an Alethi princedom, and seen as the power behind the throne.

Kaladin's story was, to me, a very poignant and personal one, but one that was not without hope. His start as an amazing fighter who eventually falls as low as one can in that society, and the resultant hopelessness he feels hit very close to home. I enjoyed Kaladin, and the family he found in Bridge Four, where he is cast out and left to be used as cannon fodder. This story of rediscovering humanity and friendship spoke to me. I definitely enjoyed Kaladin and his growth into a leader, that he gets an amazing spren companion in Syl, just added to the fun.

Shallan was actually my favorite character in this book. Her journey to find the famous heretic princess, scholar Jasnah, a formidable character in her own right, was one I sympathized with. Jasnah's artistic talent being unappreciated by her mentor, and her growth in the love of finding knowledge. Her quick wit, and determination to move forward was another thing I found inspiring.

Dalinar Kholin, the Blackthorn, unifier of Alethkar, and brother to a murdered king, is probably an fan and series favorite. I admit, he is on my list to be the best character in the series. I can never decide who I enjoy more as a main character. However, his story is one of the burdens of leadership, and the possibility that he is going insane. During every highstorm he receives visions and a voice commands him to "unite them" and this has caused him to try and live by increasingly strict Alethi codes, and the philosophy of the book The Way of Kings. It puts him at odds with his former friend and ally, Torol Sadeas, who doesn't share his vision. Putting the two most powerful highprinces at odds, Dalinar battles his visions, his son who questions his sanity, and his own doubts. If he fails, he may doom his entire kingdom.

As a set up for an epic fantasy series, I don't think this book can be beat. It is a detailed piece of worldbuilding, story driven adventure, and revelation of an ongoing mystery. You can very easily begin to question all the assumptions you have about the world presented to you, as everything is not necessarily as it seems. In what could be the defining feature of all of Brandon's books, there's always another secret. Clever, witty, and it will not fail to constantly exceed your expectations.

Way of Kings straddles the line between being an expositionary tale for building the world and lore of Roshar and beginning the whole saga of the Stormlight Archive very well. It separates each part of the book through interludes which are clever little vignettes which flesh out the world of Roshar, some of the side characters, and even give us more information on the cosmere as a whole. People who have been digging for the deeper mysteries in the whole of the cosmere will be happy with what they find, but usefully, those who don't want to read the whole of the cosmere don't have to understand these hints to enjoy the story.

As per usual, there is a very strong emphasis on the magic of the world of Roshar. This time, even for Brandon Sanderson, it is complex. It is used rationally, and very much is apart of the world itself. We have three distinct magic systems, all revolving around complex bonds and the use of various implements. Surges and Soulcasting are the mainstay, explored differently by each story arc. Then there's the shards and shardplate, something we still don't fully understand how it was created. Attached to that is fabrials, devices which harness the magical energy of spren and use them for mundane things like telling time or heating. It adds some great depth and flavor to the world, and of course, it shows off Brandon's impressive ability to create and utilize his magic in very plot important ways.

The action with this one is almost as powerful and visceral as that in the Mistborn series. It uses the magic so well, and is very cleverly written. The shardblades and shardplate make for some amazing scenes, and they are basically power armor that you would normally see in science fiction. The sheer power put forth in these ancient artifacts of destruction is amazing to see on the page. Coupled with Brandon's skill at raising the stakes as the story progresses, I promise you that you won't be disappointed with what you see!

Having now re-read this book three times, I can say it still stands tall as one of my all time favorites, especially in the fantasy genre. As I said in my Mistborn review, while that trilogy remains his perfect trilogy so far, Way of Kings remains his most perfect book to date. 

What If The Central Powers Won WWI

There's a pretty healthy market for works on alternate history regarding WWII or a Nazi Victory and I've read a lot of it, but there seems to be something of a dearth speculating on what might have happened if the Axis had never risen at all. What if, instead, Germany stood ascendant in Europe, the Entente were humbled, and the Central Powers had stood triumphant in the Great War?

So there's two options for a Central Powers victory, the 'quick' victory of knocking out France in 1914 and then turning around and bruising Russia until it asks for an armistice in 1915-16 or the long painful drawn out peace of exhaustion circa 1918. I'll cover both in these coming articles.

Option 1) The Short War

The Imperial German Military, prior to 1914, had won a series of stunning victories over it's European opponents from 1864-1870, whether the Danes, the Austrians, or the French, they had shown an incredible ability to take the fight to the enemy and overwhelm them forcing peace on them. With how wars had gone afterwards, the Russo-Turkish War, the Second Boer War, and even the Russo-Japanese War, European military planners had every expectation that any war they fought would be relatively swift and decisive. A multi-year slugging match was not envisioned by almost anyone at the time.

That was the basis around which the Schlieffen Plan was made. The quick knockout blow to France, and then turning around to bring the fight to Russia. In brief summation, a quick knockout blow to invade France through Belgium, swing around and sucker punch the French, and occupy Paris and force the French nation to the negotiating table. 

Was this a feasible plan in real life? Would the French have simply surrendered? Eh, very hard to say, but probably not. It was a flawed plan with many holes, and was absolutely dependent on the French doing as the Germans wanted, which as we saw in our own timeline, wasn't going to happen. It was inflexible, inaccurate, and didn't allocate nearly enough men before it began getting messed around with during the historic Battle of the Frontiers. Then the logistics are another story of flawed improvisation. The Great War channel does an excellent video on the plan and why it failed historically.

From wikimediacommons

For the purposes of this discussion, we're going to assume that the Germans do manage to swing around the French and occupy Paris, forcing the British and French armies towards the Channel and the south of France. The French, demoralized and looking for an easy peace, decide that they will accept negotiations with the German Empire, but no armistice is signed right away, and the BEF is allowed to slip away.

Now, important to note here is that until a peace treaty is signed, the Germans cannot send all of their strength to the Eastern front with Russia. They have to keep enough troops to occupy the portions of France they have, and occupy Belgium to prevent the British from trying to sneak their way back into the Continent. Instead, negotiations probably muddle through to the beginning of 1915, and the Germans take some land, annexing a strip of the coast at Dunkirk to vassal state Belgium, and then the regions around Briey which control much of French iron production.

However, it should be noted that the Germans will want to negotiate a quick treaty, so they probably will not be able to be as harsh as they like. The French will not have been decisively defeated, French armies are still in the field, they still have British money and ships backing their own not inconsiderable armed forces and economy. They may forgo most land claims entirely save Briey, and the Dunkirk strip in exchange for a larger indemnity to keep the French out. 

Assuming then, that the French fold for a quick armistice for a large indemnity, a minor loss of territory, and no change in their colonial empire (something which the Germans would have been pretty powerless to effect) then it could be speculated this would be a success for the Germans. Now they can afford to turn more men to the East and go beat up Russia.

This doesn't mean they're done fighting though. The British will be rearing to go fighting on the seas, they will most likely send troops to fight in Russia instead of France, while diverting more effort to messing up the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. However, there would be fewer neutral powers, like Italy and Romania, willing to join this war on the side of the Entente with the Central Powers so clearly triumphant.

How much of a difference British forces in Russia makes is hard to quantify. Their ships will certainly still help strangle the German economy, even though they'll be stretched thinner. British troops in the Baltics would probably prevent the Germans from so completely overrunning them and act as an important shield to St. Petersburg. However, with the Russians themselves not having much more luck than OTL against getting battered, and possible strains between British and Russian commanders, it is unlikely they can really hold off the Germans into 1917 without both sides deciding to sue for peace. The Germans would have the worry of French deciding to break their treaty, as they are merely humbled but not broken, and the British and Russians would be bearing the brunt of the fighting.

Peace in this scenario will probably mean similar annexations from the Russians (an independent Poland, Ukraine and Belarus) but probably the Baltics will stay in Russian hands. The Russians too will be forced to pay an indemnity. Something similar enough to Brest-Litovsk, but not exactly it, changing with the face of the war.

Now, with Britain probably having been forced to withdraw from the Continent with both of her allies bowing out of the war, she could choose to fight on. However, with only her navy and smaller army, there are few places they could actually menace the Germans. They can keep beating up the Ottoman's, but what would that serve? They could keep the blockade going, but that is a costly and long term solution which may not bear fruit with the recent German conquests. The Germans themselves, facing the problem of Napoleon, would probably try more indirect attacks on Britain, as they couldn't hope to invade the little island.

Instead, the two sides will probably find themselves each making an unhappy peace with one another, the Germans settling in to an uneasy control over much of the Continent, and the British, unbowed, unbent, unbroken, looking to the future when they can unseat Germany. The Great War ends, late 1916.

It's important to note that despite the Germans laying out their strategic hopes in the historic Septemberprogramm, there is practically no way they will get everything they want from their victories. Changing circumstances in the war, the need to garrison new conquests, and the simple need to keep certain players out will mean that the Germans can't just take what they want. Even the Entente Powers in 1918/19 at Versailles simply couldn't dictate terms to the defeated Central Powers as they fell apart. They had to make many sacrifices, and they had overwhelming military power. The Germans here, will not. I think there is far too much speculation around a Central Powers victory giving them everything they desire, when the historic Entente victory came with so many pitfalls of its own.

So what happens to the other Central Powers in this scenario?

Though Germany took the blame for starting the war at Versailles the country which arguably bore the guilt for feeding the conflict into a larger war was that doddering institution known as the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Though a Serb assassinating Franz-Ferdinand started the conflict, Austria-Hungary's increasingly strident and almost insane demands forced Russia's hand which triggered an avalanche of military mobilizations and interlocking alliances that would leave millions dead. Historically, the empire was battered into submission and the death of Emperor Franz Joseph and the succession of his great-nephew Karl, meant that there was no truly stable force to keep the empire alive and the Fourteen Points of Wilson, coupled with increasing nationalistic unrest and defeat, splintered the Empire permanently.

Here though, if the treaties can be concluded in 1916, you have an Emperor who has lived through a successful war and when he dies it may well be in a nation at peace. The new Emperor Karl, who appeared to support a more federated empire, may be able to bring stability to the various realms which comprise this great chunk of Europe. With some minor concessions from Serbia and Russia in territory, the Empire may very well thrive and be able to rebuild. A victorious Germany next door will be a very good way to keep a lid on things, and the need to mind Germany's new vassal states in Eastern Europe will probably cinch cooperation between the two. The empire will probably be stable, for a time at least.

The Ottoman Empire on the other hand, the one power which Britain would probably concentrated a lot of its energy on, would still be badly beaten up. The British would have done their best to kick off regional revolts like they did in our timeline, the Armenian genocide would still have taken place, and the Ottoman's would most likely still have suffered at the hands of Russia in the Caucuses. It would be the now very sick man of Europe, and even with help from its other Central Powers benefactors would probably not be long for the world.

Nationalistic revolts, angry Arabs, Kurds, and Armenians, all probably see the Ottomans descending into nasty civil wars and revolts in the 1930s perhaps as the army will eventually get fed up and overthrow the Sultan. Expect it to break up before too long I think.

The last member of the Central Powers, mighty little Bulgaria, will also be quite pleased with what it accomplishes. Having been badly beaten in the Second Balkan War, the Bulgarians nursed hearty grudges against all their neighbors, and historically the ascendancy of the Central Powers in 1915 brought them in on their side. Here, that obviously still happens, and so they help crush Serbia, and then go on to menace Greece and Romania into neutrality while sending men to help bludgeon the Russians. Historically the were promised the portions of Serbia in Vardar and east of the Morava River. They may even be able to use the victory to level concessions from Romania for the portion of Dobruja they had so wanted historically. Either way, Bulgaria will be the big winner from this war. 

In the rest of the world, a white peace with Britain may see the Germans take control of the Belgian Congo, as a stepping stone for a greater German empire in Africa as they can't force Britain's hand in Africa, nor that of France. They may be forced to relinquish their Pacific holdings, but with the Congo in their hands, no great loss. The British Empire remains untouched, the Japanese Empire has made some minor gains at the Germans expense, and so are probably on Germany's hit list for the future.

Hypothetical Europe/Africa circa 1918

What about the neutrals though? Those who didn't join the war?

The obvious elephant in the room is the United States. Having sat the war out they haven't yet had to build up their military strength, and having only partially fallen menace to Germany's submarine warfare campaign, they will maybe only see naval expansion as a necessity. Without having mobilized a large wartime army, no Zimmerman Telegram to make them feel threatened at home, it is unlikely they will truly develop the military muscle and nationalistic pride they had in our timeline. Instead, I think it likely that the ethnic nationalism (first language newspapers, purely German speaking communities among others) persists to a great degree in the 20th Century, possibly until well past the midpoint. The US is more concerned about the chaos in Mexico on it's southern border and collecting the debts the Entente owes them.

Italy meanwhile, is sulky because Austria still controls territory it considers Italian, they have competing ambitions in the Adriatic, and Italy still wants to expand its African empire. They are probably side eyeing the Central Powers whom they screwed over by staying neutral, and the Germans and Austrians are doing the same to them. Romania, for her part, is simply feeling lucky it sat out the war. There's an uneasy peace in Europe.

By 1920 the world is in an uneasy new status quo. France, Britain, and Russia will all be hopping mad, and looking for revanche, while Germany is busy policing a new colonial empire in Africa and Eastern Europe, neither of which may take kindly to being occupied. How long this can last is open to debate, but with a well armed and still wealthy Britain to back Germany's enemies, I think it's only reasonable to conclude both sides would be looking for Round 2, and with a short decisive war being the norm, why not?

Since if I continue this piece to cover the war of exhaustion we're going to run over four to six thousand words, I'm going to split this into two for a part two, Peace of Exhaustion! Stay Tuned!

Writing Update Summer 2020 and Winter Law

With the steady and inexorable advance of Covid-19 at the start of the year very much messing up my plans, I have, thankfully, been able to work on a lot of writing over the past eight months. Summer was mostly productive, and the year has been very productive overall.

Firstly, I did publish my little vignette 2069 in July which was a fun experiment in second person narration, and an opening for a larger series of short stories I intend to be publishing over the next couple years. Not exclusively on this blog of course! I aim to anthologize them for fun and profit!

Secondly, over the course of the summer I finished my short story Priests of the White God which came out at 12,809 words. It is a low fantasy, nautical horror story which I intend to anthologize with some other short pieces this October, and that will be my biggest writing goal of September. It will be premiered alongside my existing piece of flash fiction, The Disappearance of Wilson and two other stories. One is The Closing Hour which features sadistic shopkeepers in a definitely-not-Walmart in sinister circumstances, I'm envisioning it as something like The Purge meets Clerks. The other is a story inspired by my time in quarantine during early Covid-19 and the depressing news hours I watched while not doing much of anything. It will probably clock in at some 7-10k words, untitled yet, but has lots of disease and a little death. 

With those four stories I'll anthologize them and hopefully have them packaged for release by late October in what is tentatively titled Darkness in the Mind.

I also, over the last few days in August, managed to churn out a dark fantasy short for the Grimdark Magazine. They had the Matthew Ward Pay It Forward Competition for short pieces of dark fantasy running for unpublished authors, maximum word count 4,000. With the 4k limit, sadly my short story Priests of the White God was ineligible. I had an idea that had been in rough form for a while though, and so I hammered out some words and a brief plot. The Winter Law is sacred, and those who break it have naught but rough justice awaiting them. Bermer is a hunter apprenticed to his master Horm, and trudging through the late winter snows with only a guide, they must figure out whether a small family of farmers has broken the law, and if they have, there can be no mercy. That is the gist of my short story Winter Law which will be submitted to the contest. Coming in at 3,588 words, I'm sending this bad boy off and seeing where it lands.

Other than those works, I have made some progress on longer works. One alternate history project currently sits at 36,000 words, and another project is currently being meticulously plotted out, my 1866 piece A Road Not Taken regarding an alternate Battle of Ridgeway. I'm currently aiming for it to be my NaNoWriMo project.

In other news, my novella Integration remains in the slush pile at Tor. Since it now is not the only long form fiction I've completed I'm going to let it sit for a time, and hopefully have more news for 2021. 

Overall, a rather productive summer for simply writing in my spare time! Hopefully by years end I'll have further updates for you all! In the meantime, I'm back to hammering on the keys!

So About John A. Macdonald Again

I last spoke on the subject of John A. Macdonald back in 2017. In that little essay, I made many statements on why Macdonald is a flawed man, and some of the mistakes he made. I also pointed out why it is important we remember him and what he accomplished for Canada. Also in that first article I made some mistakes when talking about his past actions and the legacy he left us. In light of recent events, I hope to make some corrections, but also stand comprehensively by the good and the bad of our first Prime Minister's legacy, and why I'm unwilling to forget either of those thing.

In my previous essay I did mention what I thought were the positives of Macdonald's legacy, and to begin this one I would like to point out many of his faults before I expound on why it is important he be remembered, and why our current historiography is perhaps not up to the task of doing it.

Firstly, yes, Macdonald was absolutely a racist and that's something that even if you subscribe to judging people by their time period, he was no paragon of tolerance and virtue. He dismissed the Indigenous peoples of Canada who would not settle to farm land and adopt Anglo-Saxon culture as savages. In his multiple dealings with the Métis people he referred to them as half-breeds, a slur on their Indigenous-European roots. 

He was even extremely racist against the Chinese, exceptionally so for the time, wholeheartedly supporting the efforts of British Columbia to expel them from the province and desired to exclude them from the right to vote even in his aforementioned 1885 Franchise Act. He said "...if they came in great numbers and settled on the Pacific coast they might control the vote of that whole Province, and they would send Chinese representatives to sit here, who would represent Chinese eccentricities, Chinese immorality, Asiatic principles altogether opposite to our wishes; and, in the even balance of parties, they might enforce those Asiatic principles, those immoralities … the eccentricities which are abhorrent to the Aryan* race and Aryan principles, on this House." This shocked even his contemporaries, many of whom objected to denying those of Asian extraction the vote. In the end, Macdonald managed to exclude them however.

He also sanctioned the Davin Report in 1879 which was directly responsible for the creation of the Residential School System which would be used in Canada until the 1990s. I want to make clear here that the report specifically highlighted that taking children from their families to 'civilize' them was the best option, and this was supported by Macdonald.

As I said before, Macdonald was directly responsible for the Residential School System, which is a shameful stain on our history. To be clearer than I was in that original essay, the sanctioning of that system, and it's perpetuation by our government long after it was shown to be unhealthy and ineffective and also not even cost effective, was an act of cultural genocide. Though it did not, in sheer numeric terms, kill many people, it caused irreparable damage to Indigenous culture and communities wherever it was implemented and has lasting and terrible effects to this day. 

To continue from my earlier comment on the Franchise Act of 1885, however, one could cynically examine the prospective Indigenous right to vote as an attempt to enshrine as a method of control over Indigenous polities. It would, in the language presented, effectively destroy the traditional structure of Indigenous self-government. It would take away their unique rights as tribal entities, and assimilate them into the broader Canadian society, effectively cutting up communally owned tribal land into individually owned properties. Though ostensibly they were allowed to keep their tribal affiliation, they would lose any special privileges under the Indian Act (another note on the Act below).

Despite this, does this itself make the attempt to at least grant the franchise to the Indigenous peoples, even with long strings attached, an ignoble thing? Some would say yes, and considering that relations with the government are fraught and full of federally exploited loopholes and are imposed in a top down style to this day, that would not be an incorrect view. However, considering almost no legislation was put forward to try and even engage Indigenous peoples in a discussion about voting again until the 1940s, and then not granted on their terms until the 1960s, some might say that as this bill was being pushed in 1885 after a full blown rebellion, it was still a progressive attempt for its day. Though let it be known that Macdonald did say "The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change." It must not be forgotten that even the most benevolent seeming actions by the government then (and arguably still) were about assimilation into the Canadian whole.