Subject: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 22:58:59 -0700 From: Mike Ralls Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if The monkeys with the AIDS virus (or the CIA, pick your theory) get bulldozed and all die before they spread it to any humans. As a result, AIDS never exists. Now what? Sexual mores will be a good deal liberal. Yea, there are still a lot of good germs out there to mess you up and even kill you, but as someone who remembers sex-ed in high school, nothing put the fear of sex into kids like AIDS did. So the Western World is more promisuous. More teen-age pregnancy? Probably. Possibly even a decrease in mariage as an institution as there are more swingers? Doubtful, but it could happen. Sex tourism is probably bigger too. Gays. This is a huge one. It seems to me that AIDS did two things to the homosexual community, killed bunches and bunches of them and gave them a more somber and serious level. Hear me out on this one. AIDS severly killed a disproportionate number of homosexuals and if this didn't happen it would have a number of effects. For one thing there are more gay voters and this would probably strengthen the Democrats. Gore in 2000? It was DAMN close and it wouldn't have taken much. But getting back to the Gay community, yea I do think it gave them a more serious tone. Yea, oppresion and bigotry were (and aren't) nothing to sneeze at, but seeing so many of your friends die couldn't help but somber up those who remained. This feeling is just based on my own imperfect knowledge of that community. What do you think? Famous people. Who's died of AIDS that could have had a big impact? Africa: Who boy this is the real big one. AIDS turned Africa into even more of a slaughterhouse than it was before hand. It's worse than the black death over there. Without AIDS how stable would Africa be? Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 08:08:57 UNDEFINED From: rmcdonald@upei.ca Organization: University of Prince Edward Island Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article <3AF639A3.FE4985BA@willamette.edu> Mike Ralls writes: >From: Mike Ralls >Subject: AIDS Never Spreads >Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 22:58:59 -0700 >The monkeys with the AIDS virus (or the CIA, pick your theory) get >bulldozed and all die before they spread it to any humans. I take it that your POD is prior to the present, since AIDS appears to have been resident as an endemic (non-epidemic) disease in central Africa for a while. >As a result, >AIDS never exists. Now what? > >Sexual mores will be a good deal liberal. Yea, there are still a lot of >good germs out there to mess you up and even kill you, but as someone >who remembers sex-ed in high school, nothing put the fear of sex into >kids like AIDS did. So the Western World is more promisuous. More >teen-age pregnancy? Probably. Possibly even a decrease in mariage as >an institution as there are more swingers? Doubtful, but it could >happen. Sex tourism is probably bigger too. Bad news for Thailand ... >Gays. This is a huge one. It seems to me that AIDS did two things to >the homosexual community, killed bunches and bunches of them and gave >them a more somber and serious level. Hear me out on this one. AIDS >severly killed a disproportionate number of homosexuals and if this >didn't happen it would have a number of effects. For one thing there >are more gay voters and this would probably strengthen the Democrats. >Gore in 2000? It was DAMN close and it wouldn't have taken much. But >getting back to the Gay community, yea I do think it gave them a more >serious tone. Yea, oppresion and bigotry were (and aren't) nothing to >sneeze at, but seeing so many of your friends die couldn't help but >somber up those who remained. This feeling is just based on my own >imperfect knowledge of that community. What do you think? I've got no idea. >Famous people. Who's died of AIDS that could have had a big impact? Rock Hudson and Liberace are the obvious ones, I suppose, though I can't remember them having much of an impact. >Africa: Who boy this is the real big one. AIDS turned Africa into even >more of a slaughterhouse than it was before hand. It's worse than the >black death over there. Not yet, actually -- even in the worst-hit countries, like Botswana, infection levels are "only" 30% of the population. For South Africa (25% infection rate), it's generally predicted that between a relatively high birth rate and immigration that population growth will fall to 0.5-0.6% per annum. Still, it's bad. >Without AIDS how stable would Africa be? I can't see it making much of an effect in central Africa, but perhaps the states of southern Africa -- Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa -- would be somewhat better prepared for economic growth. Again, more than that I cannot say. Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:51:21 GMT From: beathotel@loop.komm (Johnny Yen) Organization: Importa un bledo Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On Mon, 7 May 2001 08:08:57 UNDEFINED, rmcdonald@upei.ca wrote: >In article <3AF639A3.FE4985BA@willamette.edu> Mike Ralls writes: >>From: Mike Ralls >>Subject: AIDS Never Spreads >>Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 22:58:59 -0700 > >>The monkeys with the AIDS virus (or the CIA, pick your theory) get >>bulldozed and all die before they spread it to any humans. > >I take it that your POD is prior to the present, since AIDS appears to have >been resident as an endemic (non-epidemic) disease in central Africa for a >while. > >>As a result, >>AIDS never exists. Now what? >> >>Sexual mores will be a good deal liberal. Yea, there are still a lot of >>good germs out there to mess you up and even kill you, but as someone >>who remembers sex-ed in high school, nothing put the fear of sex into >>kids like AIDS did. So the Western World is more promisuous. More >>teen-age pregnancy? Probably. Only a minor effect in this regard, ( no pun intended ). AIDS has made teens more leery of adults as sex partners, but most teenaged pregnancy is the result of other teens. ( snip ) > >>Famous people. Who's died of AIDS that could have had a big impact? > >Rock Hudson and Liberace are the obvious ones, I suppose, though I can't >remember them having much of an impact. Hudson was just another aging Hollywood macho man by 1980. His career peak was long over. Miles Davis was widely rumoured to have been HIV positive, and as such would certainly have been the most major cultural figure with AIDS, but he burned out after the mid seventies. His 80s work was pretty worthless. Some names come to mind : Derek Jarman, Keith Haring, Freddie Mercury, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Cyril Collard, Fela Kuti. > >>Africa: Who boy this is the real big one. AIDS turned Africa into even >>more of a slaughterhouse than it was before hand. It's worse than the >>black death over there. > >Not yet, actually -- even in the worst-hit countries, like Botswana, infection >levels are "only" 30% of the population. For South Africa (25% infection >rate), it's generally predicted that between a relatively high birth rate and >immigration that population growth will fall to 0.5-0.6% per annum. > >Still, it's bad. > Supposedly, AIDS' impact has made Ugandans long for the " good old days " of Idi Amin. >>Without AIDS how stable would Africa be? > >I can't see it making much of an effect in central Africa, but perhaps the >states of southern Africa -- Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa -- >would be somewhat better prepared for economic growth. Again, more than that I >cannot say. Africa would still be in deep trouble without AIDS. Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 19:56:38 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Johnny Yen wrote: > > [deletia] > > Some names come to mind : [...] Rainer Werner Fassbinder Fassbinder? I thought that his suicide (in 1981?) wasn't AIDS related. > >>Africa: Who boy this is the real big one. AIDS turned Africa into even > >>more of a slaughterhouse than it was before hand. It's worse than the > >>black death over there. > > > >Not yet, actually -- even in the worst-hit countries, like Botswana, infection > >levels are "only" 30% of the population. For South Africa (25% infection > >rate), it's generally predicted that between a relatively high birth rate and > >immigration that population growth will fall to 0.5-0.6% per annum. > > > >Still, it's bad. > > > Supposedly, AIDS' impact has made Ugandans long for the > " good old days " of Idi Amin. Supposedly. > >>Without AIDS how stable would Africa be? > > > >I can't see it making much of an effect in central Africa, but perhaps the > >states of southern Africa -- Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa -- > >would be somewhat better prepared for economic growth. Again, more than that I > >cannot say. > > Africa would still be in deep trouble without AIDS. Africa as a whole, yes, but AIDS severely harmed the future prospects of such potentially middle-income states as Botswana and Zimbabwe by gutting their educated populations of working-age. (South Africa less so, and I don't know enough to comment about Namibia.) -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PE Canada Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 15:58:10 GMT From: beathotel@loop.komm (Johnny Yen) Organization: Importa un bledo Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 On Sun, 13 May 2001 19:56:38 -0300, Randy McDonald wrote: >Johnny Yen wrote: >> >> [deletia] >> >> Some names come to mind : [...] Rainer Werner Fassbinder > >Fassbinder? I thought that his suicide (in 1981?) wasn't AIDS related. I'd read something that implied that Brad Davis got AIDS from Fassbinder or someone in his circle. The first person whom anyone had heard of for doing anything who died from AIDS was NY performance artist/new wave singer Klaus Nomi. > >> >>Africa: Who boy this is the real big one. AIDS turned Africa into even >> >>more of a slaughterhouse than it was before hand. It's worse than the >> >>black death over there. >> > >> >Not yet, actually -- even in the worst-hit countries, like Botswana, infection >> >levels are "only" 30% of the population. For South Africa (25% infection >> >rate), it's generally predicted that between a relatively high birth rate and >> >immigration that population growth will fall to 0.5-0.6% per annum. >> > >> >Still, it's bad. >> > >> Supposedly, AIDS' impact has made Ugandans long for the >> " good old days " of Idi Amin. > >Supposedly. I had read that somewhere, but can't remember exactly where. >> >>Without AIDS how stable would Africa be? >> > >> >I can't see it making much of an effect in central Africa, but perhaps the >> >states of southern Africa -- Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa -- >> >would be somewhat better prepared for economic growth. Again, more than that I >> >cannot say. >> >> Africa would still be in deep trouble without AIDS. > >Africa as a whole, yes, but AIDS severely harmed the future prospects of >such potentially middle-income states as Botswana and Zimbabwe by >gutting their educated populations of working-age. (South Africa less >so, and I don't know enough to comment about Namibia.) >-- >Randy McDonald > >Charlottetown PE >Canada > > > Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: 07 May 2001 11:44:39 GMT From: jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Randy McDonald said: >Bad news for Thailand ... Sexual tourism is worse for Thailand than a massive rate of deaths from AIDS is? -- Sincerely Yours, Jordan -- "To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too late." (Churchill, 1934) -- Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 09:34:41 UNDEFINED From: rmcdonald@upei.ca Organization: University of Prince Edward Island Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article <20010507074439.02669.00000430@ng-fm1.aol.com> jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) writes: >From: jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) >Date: 07 May 2001 11:44:39 GMT >Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads >Randy McDonald said: >>Bad news for Thailand ... >Sexual tourism is worse for Thailand than a massive rate of deaths from AIDS >is? At least sex tourism in Thailand was curtailed, or made less visible, by AIDS. It's a massively exploitative form of tourism that did nothing for Thailand's reputation, IIRC. Without the threat of AIDS, it might not be cleaned up. >-- >Sincerely Yours, >Jordan >-- >"To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On >the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too >late." (Churchill, 1934) >-- Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 02:32:52 -0400 From: Old Toby Organization: The University of Michigan Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 rmcdonald@upei.ca wrote: > > In article <20010507074439.02669.00000430@ng-fm1.aol.com> jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) writes: > >From: jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) > >Date: 07 May 2001 11:44:39 GMT > >Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads > > >Randy McDonald said: > > >>Bad news for Thailand ... > > >Sexual tourism is worse for Thailand than a massive rate of deaths from AIDS > >is? > > At least sex tourism in Thailand was curtailed, or made less visible, by AIDS. > It's a massively exploitative form of tourism that did nothing for Thailand's > reputation, IIRC. Without the threat of AIDS, it might not be cleaned up. You could get the same results in less time if the government started shooting prostitutes and johns, and probably ultimately at the cost of fewer lives. That's what your solution amounts to, an unappealable death sentence for the participants in the sex trade. Old Toby Least Known Dog on the Net 4 Old Toby wrote: > > rmcdonald@upei.ca wrote: > > > > In article <20010507074439.02669.00000430@ng-fm1.aol.com> jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) writes: > > >From: jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) > > >Date: 07 May 2001 11:44:39 GMT > > >Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads > > > > >Randy McDonald said: > > > > >>Bad news for Thailand ... > > > > >Sexual tourism is worse for Thailand than a massive rate of deaths from AIDS > > >is? > > > > At least sex tourism in Thailand was curtailed, or made less visible, by AIDS. > > It's a massively exploitative form of tourism that did nothing for Thailand's > > reputation, IIRC. Without the threat of AIDS, it might not be cleaned up. > > You could get the same results in less time if the government > started shooting prostitutes and johns, and probably ultimately at the > cost of fewer lives. That's what your solution amounts to, an unappealable > death sentence for the participants in the sex trade. OK, hold on. That isn't what I meant at all. We are agreed, OK, that sex tourism -- people from the rich First World coming to the poor Third World to have sex with as many people (women, men, children) -- is a massively exploitative business. Poor migrants, for instance, have been sold by their parents into the trade or tricked, and subjected to what is basically serial rape. There's the psychological trauma inflicted upon the participants, and the long-term physical effects (STDs, physical damage), and so on. Now, it's possible to imagine in a TL without AIDS that the Thai sex trade might be even larger, with a substantially greater foreign clientele and consequently a larger number of people subjected to the trade. Already, OTL quite a few Burmese and Cambodian women and girls have been taken to Thailand, on the guise of domestic labour, only to be subjected to repeated rapes in brothels; how many more would be taken in this TL? This TL would also have, apart from AIDS, just as many STDs as OTL. Very often these can still be lethal to poor people who don't have access to modern medical care. In a TL with greater prostitution, and less safe sex, how many more poor people in Thailand and Southeast Asia would be infected? The death toll might well be comparable to that produced OTL by AIDS. As I said in my reply to Bassior, the AIDS epidemic had the dubious benefit of limiting the expansion of the sex trade in Thailand and encouraging safe sex. In a TL without the AIDS scare, this wouldn't happen. Neither is an attractive scenario -- in the first more than a half-million people are infected with HIV but safe sex is common, in the second there's no HIV but a lot more people forced into the sex trade and a very high rate of penetration of STDs in the general Thai population, and still quite a few deaths. Which is preferable? ObWI: The border between the Vietnams remains stable since South Vietnam is governed by a competent regime. Consequently, GIs don't go on leave in Thailand and the local sex industry remains small. What next? > Old Toby > Least Known Dog on the Net -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PE Canada Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: 08 May 2001 03:57:04 GMT From: jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Randy McDonald said: >At least sex tourism in Thailand was curtailed, or made less visible, by AIDS. >It's a massively exploitative form of tourism that did nothing for Thailand's >reputation, IIRC. Without the threat of AIDS, it might not be cleaned up. Well yes, but the price has been god knows how many thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of Thai lives. -- Sincerely Yours, Jordan -- "To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too late." (Churchill, 1934) -- Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 22:29:55 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Jordan S. Bassior wrote: > > Randy McDonald said: > > >At least sex tourism in Thailand was curtailed, or made less visible, by AIDS. > > >It's a massively exploitative form of tourism that did nothing for Thailand's > >reputation, IIRC. Without the threat of AIDS, it might not be cleaned up. > > Well yes, but the price has been god knows how many thousands, maybe hundreds > of thousands, of Thai lives. How many of those people would have died of other STDs? (The POD would still leave these intact.) How more widely dispersed would STDs be within the Thai population? Quite frankly, neither option is appealing. ObWI: No sex tourism in Thailand? > -- > Sincerely Yours, > Jordan > -- > "To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On > the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too > late." (Churchill, 1934) > -- -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PE Canada Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:55:49 GMT From: beathotel@loop.komm (Johnny Yen) Organization: Importa un bledo Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Mon, 07 May 2001 22:29:55 -0300, Randy McDonald wrote: >Jordan S. Bassior wrote: >> >> Randy McDonald said: >> >> >At least sex tourism in Thailand was curtailed, or made less visible, by AIDS. Hardly. >> >> >It's a massively exploitative form of tourism that did nothing for Thailand's >> >reputation, IIRC. Without the threat of AIDS, it might not be cleaned up. Sex tourism was SOMEWHAT reduced by a concerted effort on the part of a coalition of local and international interests, both official and NGOs. You don't need AIDS for this to take place. >> Well yes, but the price has been god knows how many thousands, maybe hundreds >> of thousands, of Thai lives. > >How many of those people would have died of other STDs? (The POD would >still leave these intact.) How more widely dispersed would STDs be >within the Thai population? > >Quite frankly, neither option is appealing. ObWI: No sex tourism in >Thailand? Not sure how this could be outside of a WI in which air travel to Asia from the US and Europe is much more expensive or unfeasable. However, for a reduced level of sex tourism, one thing does make a big difference : no Vietnam war. Of course this is a WI in itself.... >> -- >> Sincerely Yours, >> Jordan >> -- >> "To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On >> the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too >> late." (Churchill, 1934) >> -- > >-- >Randy McDonald > >Charlottetown PE >Canada > > > Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: 13 May 2001 19:02:10 GMT From: jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Johnny Yen said: >Not sure how this could be outside of a WI in which air travel to >Asia from the US and Europe is much more expensive or unfeasable. >However, for a reduced level of sex tourism, one thing does make >a big difference : no Vietnam war. Of course this is a WI in >itself.... And, depending on the reason why the Vietnam War was avoided, could lead to Thailand going Communist -- in which case the AIDS fatalities of OTL would have been a drop in the bucket comapared to the slaughter when the Communists took over and started man-hunting. -- Sincerely Yours, Jordan -- "To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too late." (Churchill, 1934) -- Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 07:49:06 -0400 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Mike Ralls wrote: > The monkeys with the AIDS virus (or the CIA, pick your theory) get > bulldozed and all die before they spread it to any humans. As a result, > AIDS never exists. Now what? > > Sexual mores will be a good deal liberal. Yea, there are still a lot of > good germs out there to mess you up and even kill you, but as someone > who remembers sex-ed in high school, nothing put the fear of sex into > kids like AIDS did. So the Western World is more promisuous. More > teen-age pregnancy? Probably. Possibly even a decrease in mariage as > an institution as there are more swingers? Doubtful, but it could > happen. Sex tourism is probably bigger too. What about anti-biotic resistant syphlis and ghonerrea? Since these STD's existed it is highly likely that anti-biotics will produce ueber versions of these diseases. Given that anyone who is not careful can get a dose, it seems that the same pall will descend upon unprotected and promiscuious sexually activity as occured in OTL. Bob Kolker Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 14:38:00 +0100 From: sophia Organization: The Court of Faerie Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article <3AF639A3.FE4985BA@willamette.edu>, Mike Ralls writes There's some big issues here. >Sexual mores will be a good deal liberal. Yea, there are still a lot of >good germs out there to mess you up and even kill you, but as someone >who remembers sex-ed in high school, nothing put the fear of sex into >kids like AIDS did. So the Western World is more promisuous. More >teen-age pregnancy? Probably. Possibly even a decrease in mariage as >an institution as there are more swingers? Doubtful, but it could >happen. Sex tourism is probably bigger too. I'd argue the at the advent of HIV merely caused a blip in a continuing upward curve in sexual freedom and tolerance of alternative sexualities in the West. I'd also suggest that the sexual mores of the general population, in Europe at least, are demonstrably far more liberal now than they were even 10 years ago, and certainly far so more than say in the immediate pre-HIV awareness period 1970-80. While I have no practical experience of the situation in the US, everything I have heard from friends and other sources suggests to me suggests to me that the US gay, lesbian, bi. SM and other communities are partying as hard as they ever did, if not more so. It's just that they are now practising safe sex as well, which is no bad thing. > >Gays. This is a huge one. It seems to me that AIDS did two things to >the homosexual community, killed bunches and bunches of them The 'lost generation' effect, particularly in the gay male community was very significant, but it's possible to overstate it. It did lead to an atmosphere of doom laden seriousness, particularly in the mid/late 1980s, but that has passed a long time ago. A more important effect of the Aids crisis was the impetus it gave to political campaigning, on the issue of the disease itself and its prevention, spurred on by seeming government indifference to the problem. Many vocal queer political organisations came out of the fight against Aids, and this was paralleled by a growth in healthcare and community organisations which had not previously not existed. One might argue that the queer community came out institutionally stronger and better organised than it had been pre-HIV, and this new found confidence has been directed to the wider cause of queer rights. Another important issue arising from HIV is that it has forced a lot of taboos to be broken about sexual matters - things that had been swept under the carpet or regarded as unmentionable have had to be discussed openly as it's the only way to reduce the risk of the disease spreading. The long term consequences of this have been extremely important. >and gave >them a more somber and serious level. Hear me out on this one. AIDS >severly killed a disproportionate number of homosexuals and if this >didn't happen it would have a number of effects. For one thing there >are more gay voters and this would probably strengthen the Democrats. >Gore in 2000? Unlikely, I would have thought. Even assuming people vote by their sexuality (*), the queer community isn't evenly spread, there's a marked tendency (for reasons to do with persecution that are fairly obvious) to migrate from the small towns and rural areas - the sort of places that voted for Bush - to the cities, which tended to vote for Gore anyway. Now, if they all lived in Florida.... [(*) It's a big if. I don't doubt there are many queer Republicans, just as there are some queer Tories in the UK. On the other hand I would expect the US community to be far more likely to vote Democrat than Republican due the strident anti-gay remarks of some Republicans and the party's links to 'morality' campaigners and the fundies. Oops, getting dangerously close to the BOP there.] > >Famous people. Who's died of AIDS that could have had a big impact? Impossible to say. It's like the great 17th century playwright and polymath Sir Richard Hampden. Never heard of him? That's because he died of the plague in 1665 when he was 17, before he'd even started. > >Africa: Who boy this is the real big one. AIDS turned Africa into even >more of a slaughterhouse than it was before hand. It's worse than the >black death over there. Without AIDS how stable would Africa be? > I don't think that the instability of sub-Saharan Africa has anything to do with Aids - it's the result of kleptocracy, proxy wars, the fallout of the end of Colonialism, misguided ideologues, ethnic hatreds and villainy on a massive scale by a number of parties. That said, massive levels of HIV infection isn't helping, and I think it will become an important factor in the politics of the continent in the near future, particularly in Southern (esp SA itself) and West Africa. What will happen is anybody's guess, but it won't be pretty. -- Sophia 'When people tell me Aids is the curse of God on gays, I ask them, "If God behaves like that, where is the disease that only affects torturers and concentration camp guards then?" Faith in Fabulousness www.arxana.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: 08 May 2001 02:00:43 GMT From: che49966680@aol.com (Mister Wiggins) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 > Many vocal queer >political organisations Queer? I didn't think people still said that. Mister Wiggins. "Well Govan, If we are to die, let us die like men."- Last words of Pat Cleburne. 1864 "If this is as good as it gets, then I'm sorely disappointed." Kate Morrow, 2001. Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: 08 May 2001 13:55:22 GMT From: srogerscat@cs.com (Steven Rogers) Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >che49966680@aol.com (Mister Wiggins) wites: >Queer? I didn't think people still said that. It's one of those words you really shouldn't use unless you happen to be one. Steve Yoicks! And Away! Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 15:06:20 GMT From: "Allan Mac Donald" Organization: MPowered-Subscriber Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "Steven Rogers" wrote in message news:20010508095522.03221.00002548@ng-mp1.news.cs.com... > >che49966680@aol.com (Mister Wiggins) wites: > > > > >Queer? I didn't think people still said that. > > It's one of those words you really shouldn't use unless you happen to be one. > Steve > Yoicks! And Away! Yes, only Queers are allowed to say Queer. ;-) Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 05:07:53 GMT From: "Allan Mac Donald" Organization: MPowered-Subscriber Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "Mister Wiggins" wrote in message news:20010507220043.09378.00002025@ng-fz1.aol.com... > > Many vocal queer > >political organisations > > Queer? I didn't think people still said that. > > > > Mister Wiggins. Its a reclaimed word. -- --- that said, let my bouncing resume... [bounce, bounce, bounce] Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 07:59:09 +0100 From: sophia Organization: The Court of Faerie Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article <20010507220043.09378.00002025@ng-fz1.aol.com>, Mister Wiggins writes >> Many vocal queer >>political organisations > >Queer? I didn't think people still said that. > It's certainly not one of my favourite words, but it has sort of been 'reclaimed' by the community (which doesn't mean you can use it in the street to people unless you are a _very_ good friend of theirs). It's just easier than typing 'lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered' every time. The reason I didn't just use 'gay' is that that generally refers to men, and the gay male community's experience with HIV and Aids has been very different to that say of bi women. > -- Sophia Faith in Fabulousness www.arxana.demon.co.uk/ icq: 93834408 Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: 07 May 2001 19:40:46 GMT From: tagehring@aol.com (Tommy Gehring) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >>and gave >>them a more somber and serious level. Hear me out on this one. AIDS >>severly killed a disproportionate number of homosexuals and if this >>didn't happen it would have a number of effects. For one thing there >>are more gay voters and this would probably strengthen the Democrats. >>Gore in 2000? > >Unlikely, I would have thought. Even assuming people vote by their >sexuality (*), the queer community isn't evenly spread, there's a >marked tendency (for reasons to do with persecution that are fairly >obvious) to migrate from the small towns and rural areas - the sort of >places that voted for Bush - to the cities, which tended to vote for >Gore anyway. Now, if they all lived in Florida.... Well, it can be seen on a smaller scale in local politics. In Richmond, which has a disporpotionately high number of homosexuals, the vote went for Gore, and, among students at my school (VCU, which is the cause of the disporpotionate numbers), Gore only slightly led Nader, followed by Bush. >[(*) It's a big if. I don't doubt there are many queer Republicans, just >as there are some queer Tories in the UK. On the other hand I would >expect the US community to be far more likely to vote Democrat than >Republican due the strident anti-gay remarks of some Republicans >and the party's links to 'morality' campaigners and the fundies. Oops, >getting dangerously close to the BOP there.] ::hides:: And I voted for Bush.... Worst mistake i've made all century ;-) If I knew then what I know now... === "Nothing promotes discussion and dialogue better than a naked woman in a cage." - Kristie Phelps, PETA Tommy Gehring Richmond, Virginia http://www.geocities.com/ta_gehring/index.html Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 23:32:44 GMT From: "Allan Mac Donald" Organization: MPowered-Subscriber Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "Tommy Gehring" wrote in message news:20010507154046.26265.00004550@ng-fo1.aol.com... > > > >>and gave > >>them a more somber and serious level. Hear me out on this one. AIDS > >>severly killed a disproportionate number of homosexuals and if this > >>didn't happen it would have a number of effects. For one thing there > >>are more gay voters and this would probably strengthen the Democrats. > >>Gore in 2000? > > > >Unlikely, I would have thought. Even assuming people vote by their > >sexuality (*), the queer community isn't evenly spread, there's a > >marked tendency (for reasons to do with persecution that are fairly > >obvious) to migrate from the small towns and rural areas - the sort of > >places that voted for Bush - to the cities, which tended to vote for > >Gore anyway. Now, if they all lived in Florida.... > > Well, it can be seen on a smaller scale in local politics. In Richmond, which > has a disporpotionately high number of homosexuals, the vote went for Gore, > and, among students at my school (VCU, which is the cause of the > disporpotionate numbers), Gore only slightly led Nader, followed by Bush. > > >[(*) It's a big if. I don't doubt there are many queer Republicans, just > >as there are some queer Tories in the UK. On the other hand I would > >expect the US community to be far more likely to vote Democrat than > >Republican due the strident anti-gay remarks of some Republicans > >and the party's links to 'morality' campaigners and the fundies. Oops, > >getting dangerously close to the BOP there.] > > ::hides:: And I voted for Bush.... > > Worst mistake i've made all century ;-) If I knew then what I know now... --Knew, tried to tell tom, but hey whats the ole canuckelhead know?-- -- WILLOW Well I took Psyche 101 -- I mean, I took it from an evil government scientist who was skewered by her Frankenstein-like creation right before the final -- but I know what a Freudian slip is. Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: 07 May 2001 14:29:46 GMT From: john0714@aol.com (John0714) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Subject: AIDS Never Spreads >From: Mike Ralls mralls@willamette.edu >Date: 5/7/01 12:58 AM Central Daylight Time >Message-id: <3AF639A3.FE4985BA@willamette.edu> > >The monkeys with the AIDS virus (or the CIA, pick your theory) get >bulldozed and all die before they spread it to any humans. As a result, >AIDS never exists. Now what? > >Sexual mores will be a good deal liberal. Yea, there are still a lot of >good germs out there to mess you up and even kill you, but as someone >who remembers sex-ed in high school, nothing put the fear of sex into >kids like AIDS did. So the Western World is more promisuous. More >teen-age pregnancy? Probably. Possibly even a decrease in mariage as >an institution as there are more swingers? Doubtful, but it could >happen. Sex tourism is probably bigger too. > >Gays. This is a huge one. It seems to me that AIDS did two things to >the homosexual community, killed bunches and bunches of them and gave >them a more somber and serious level. Hear me out on this one. AIDS >severly killed a disproportionate number of homosexuals and if this >didn't happen it would have a number of effects. For one thing there >are more gay voters and this would probably strengthen the Democrats. >Gore in 2000? It was DAMN close and it wouldn't have taken much. But >getting back to the Gay community, yea I do think it gave them a more >serious tone. Yea, oppresion and bigotry were (and aren't) nothing to >sneeze at, but seeing so many of your friends die couldn't help but >somber up those who remained. This feeling is just based on my own >imperfect knowledge of that community. What do you think? > >Famous people. Who's died of AIDS that could have had a big impact? > >Africa: Who boy this is the real big one. AIDS turned Africa into even >more of a slaughterhouse than it was before hand. It's worse than the >black death over there. Without AIDS how stable would Africa be? > > A lot of people, including Hetros and others who will never get HIV, would be one hell of a lot happier. I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend until YOUR DEATH your right to say it! --Austin 3:17 JOHN A. MONTGOMERY Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: 08 May 2001 03:49:29 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> Arthur Ashe. Didn't Rock Hudson die of AIDS? ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 14:11:56 -0400 From: "Dan Iwerks" Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Prestorjon wrote in message <20010507234929.07427.00000739@ng-fh1.aol.com>... ><> > >Arthur Ashe. Didn't Rock Hudson die of AIDS? Yes. Also Freddie Mercury. Also Easy-E, one of the members of the seminal ganster-rap group N.W.A. Magic Johnson assumably keeps playing in the NBA for a few more years. This may lead to an ATL where the world was never saddled with his late-night talk show. -- ******************************************************************** Dan Iwerks, slave to the masses, hates "Rivendell". The fundamental problem with Solipsism is it makes me responsible for the fact that you're a complete idiot. ******************************************************************** Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 18:01:33 GMT From: beathotel@loop.komm (Johnny Yen) Organization: Importa un bledo Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Tue, 8 May 2001 14:11:56 -0400, "Dan Iwerks" wrote: >Prestorjon wrote in message ><20010507234929.07427.00000739@ng-fh1.aol.com>... >><> >> >>Arthur Ashe. Didn't Rock Hudson die of AIDS? > > >Yes. Also Freddie Mercury. Also Easy-E, one of the members of the seminal >ganster-rap group N.W.A. Klaus Nomi, Cyril Collard, Keith Haring, Derek Jarman, Fassbinder, Robert Mapplethorpe, Fela Kuti, Ray Sharkey, Brad Davis, Sylvester, Rudolph Nuryev, Kenny Everett...many others. Particularly big losses in the arts community,especially in NY. And this isnt even including people who were rumoured to have AIDS like Miles Davis, Andy Warhol, Graham Chapman, etc. > >Magic Johnson assumably keeps playing in the NBA for a few more years. This >may lead to an ATL where the world was never saddled with his late-night >talk show. >-- >******************************************************************** >Dan Iwerks, slave to the masses, hates "Rivendell". >The fundamental problem with Solipsism is it makes me >responsible for the fact that you're a complete idiot. >******************************************************************** st Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:40:27 GMT From: beathotel@loop.komm (Johnny Yen) Organization: Importa un bledo Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On Sun, 06 May 2001 22:58:59 -0700, Mike Ralls wrote: >The monkeys with the AIDS virus (or the CIA, pick your theory) get >bulldozed and all die before they spread it to any humans. As a result, >AIDS never exists. Now what? > >Sexual mores will be a good deal liberal. Yea, there are still a lot of >good germs out there to mess you up and even kill you, but as someone >who remembers sex-ed in high school, nothing put the fear of sex into >kids like AIDS did. So the Western World is more promisuous. AIDS has had very little effect on the promiscuity of the western world, other than encouraging rubbers. More >teen-age pregnancy? Probably AIDS has had very little effect on the incidence of teenage pregnancy. About the only effect that AIDS has had on teenaged sexual mores is that it has dissuaded teen females in the US from having sex with adult males, to some extent, however this may be an effect of the extreme segregation of age groups in the US. Perhaps without AIDS there is less of a percieved need in the US to " protect " young people - a need that has been revealed to be totally farcical and ludicrous since Columbine et al. Other teens are far more of a threat to teens than adults are. Indeed, if the US did not see fit to segregate kids in the name of " protecting " them, perhaps there are fewer school shootings et al. . Possibly even a decrease in mariage as >an institution as there are more swingers? Doubtful, but it could >happen. Sex tourism is probably bigger too. All the things you mentioned have not been affected by AIDS at all. > >Gays. This is a huge one. It seems to me that AIDS did two things to >the homosexual community, killed bunches and bunches of them and gave >them a more somber and serious level. Hear me out on this one. AIDS >severly killed a disproportionate number of homosexuals and if this >didn't happen it would have a number of effects. For one thing there >are more gay voters and this would probably strengthen the Democrats. Wrong. AIDS made the gay community politically organised, and made homophobia less socially acceptable, similar to the effect that the Holocaust had on Jewry. Without AIDS, far less gay political organisation. If anything, this would probably keep many more gays Republican, as there would not be the pressure to see gays as an interest group. >Gore in 2000? It was DAMN close and it wouldn't have taken much. But >getting back to the Gay community, yea I do think it gave them a more >serious tone. Yea, oppresion and bigotry were (and aren't) nothing to >sneeze at, but seeing so many of your friends die couldn't help but >somber up those who remained. This feeling is just based on my own >imperfect knowledge of that community. What do you think? > >Famous people. Who's died of AIDS that could have had a big impact? A lot of people we'll probably never know about, in addition to the multitudes always mentioned... >Africa: Who boy this is the real big one. AIDS turned Africa into even >more of a slaughterhouse than it was before hand. It's worse than the >black death over there. Without AIDS how stable would Africa be? Sub Saharan Africa would still be in deep shit even without AIDS, but it is true that AIDS has made things worse by killing off many of the most productive people. Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 19:17:33 +0100 From: Lyn David Thomas Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On Sun, 13 May 2001 17:40:27 GMT, beathotel@loop.komm (Johnny Yen) wrote: >Wrong. AIDS made the gay community politically organised, and >made homophobia less socially acceptable, similar to the effect >that the Holocaust had on Jewry. Without AIDS, far less gay >political organisation. If anything, this would probably keep >many more gays Republican, as there would not be the pressure >to see gays as an interest group. It didn't quite happen that way in the UK. AIDS activism somewhat eclipsed the LGB rights movement, siphoning off most of the male activists (and a fair proportion of the female ones too). As a result we seem to have lost any really coherent or overarching LGB movement in the UK. Many of the AIDS activists were later coopted into the public sector response to HIV. Given the rightwing and moralist nature of the Thatcher government things would have been very different without AIDS and the movement may have been in better shape to take on some of her lunacy. -- \/ Lyn David Thomas Webpages start at: http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 18:49:48 GMT From: gbob@netdevil.com (G.Bob) Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On Sun, 13 May 2001 17:40:27 GMT, beathotel@loop.komm (Johnny Yen) wrote: >Sub Saharan Africa would still be in deep shit even without AIDS, >but it is true that AIDS has made things worse by killing off >many of the most productive people. Although an argument could be made that the AIDS crisis in Africa is a blessing in disguise. Although the west has traditonally ignored economic and social issues in Africa, the AIDS crisis has encouraged the west to take a much closer look at Africa and increase spending on aid. It doesn't lessen the tragedy in the short term, but in the long run it may very well pay off. Bob "G. Bob" Roland G. Bob Community Manager JumpGate http://netdevil.com Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 01:13:59 +0000 (UTC) From: randy@euclid.nmu.edu (Randy Appleton) Organization: Northern Michigan University Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Sun, 13 May 2001 18:49:48 GMT, G.Bob wrote: >Although an argument could be made that the AIDS crisis in Africa is a >blessing in disguise. Although the west has traditonally ignored >economic and social issues in Africa, the AIDS crisis has encouraged >the west to take a much closer look at Africa and increase spending on >aid. It doesn't lessen the tragedy in the short term, but in the long >run it may very well pay off. I dunno. Suppose I went around and started shooting Africans in the head. I shot literally millions of Africans. Some died, but others lived and filled many an African hospital. I generated a bloody gruesome mess. As a result of my rampage, Africa gained lots of media exposure, and therefore more attention and aid spending. In the long run, will I have helped Africa? -Randy -- ======================================================================== || Randy Appleton, Professor of Computer Science at Northern Michigan || || University. And a big fan of Linux! || ================= mailto:randy@euclid.nmu.edu ========================== Subject: Re: AIDS Never Spreads Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 02:29:42 GMT From: gbob@netdevil.com (G.Bob) Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 On Mon, 14 May 2001 01:13:59 +0000 (UTC), randy@euclid.nmu.edu (Randy Appleton) wrote: > >I dunno. > >Suppose I went around and started shooting Africans in the head. I shot >literally millions of Africans. Some died, but others lived and filled >many an African hospital. I generated a bloody gruesome mess. As a >result of my rampage, Africa gained lots of media exposure, and therefore >more attention and aid spending. In the long run, will I have helped >Africa? > >-Randy It hasn't seemed to in the past. Alright, that was a little flip. The point, however, is that the west has stood by watching Africa go through famine, slaughter, and more suffering than anywhere else on earth. We didn't sem overly concerned until the AIDS crisis hit. Now we're begining to see a shift in the attitude of the west to coming to grips with the problems down there, beyond the "send arms/send guns" solutions that have been tried in the past 50 years. There seems to be a trend of billateral support for helping to encourage economic and political development, and we can "thank" AIDS for that. Bob Roland G. Bob Community Manager JumpGate http://netdevil.com