Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know this might be outside the interest of this forum, but I recently binge watched every single episode of "The Man in the High Castle". For those of you guys who don't know the premise, the basis of the book (and TV series) was that the Axis won WW2 and were able to occupy most of the United States. Japan created an occupied "Japanese Pacific States" along the West Coast, and the Eastern US became Nazi America. The capitals of both regions were respectively, San Francisco and New York City. DC was apparently atom bombed and LA wasn't really mentioned in either the book or the show.
My question is which city looked more appealing in the book and show from an urban aesthetic point of view? My opinion is that NYC looks relatively similar to what 1960s NYC would have looked like, with the obvious exception that demographics look different . San Francisco under Japanese rule looks like a completely different city, and in some ways, looks pretty interesting.
SF was slightly more racially tolerant, but it looks mad depressing and not nearly as advanced as NYC. I'd rather take my chances in NYC since neither was exactly a beacon of tolerance and at least NYC looked prettier and more civilized lol
As for LA not being mentioned in the book or show, at the time of WWII, LA wasn't nearly as prominent as it is today, or even right after the war. And since it is in Japanese-controlled territory, it makes even more sense that it was overlooked, since SF had a much stronger Japanese influence at that time than LA.
Ultimately and superficially, I'd be better off in New York as a white person of northern European ancestry. However, on a quality of life level, I'd have to completely live in the closet as a gay person (anyone who isn't straight, white, Christian, and perfectly healthy is promptly executed).
So...either place is going to offer a miserable existence, as far as I'm concerned.
Ultimately and superficially, I'd be better off in New York as a white person of northern European ancestry. However, on a quality of life level, I'd have to completely live in the closet as a gay person (anyone who isn't straight, white, Christian, and perfectly healthy is promptly executed).
So...either place is going to offer a miserable existence, as far as I'm concerned.
Same boat. Gay Jew here lol. But I don't look Jewish and don't come off as gay so if I faked my entire life, I'd have a better quality of life in NYC than SF. Doesn't seem like anyone is really doing all that well in SF.
Exactly. If you’re not a full-blooded Japanese person in San Francisco, you are automatically a second-class citizen with limited economic opportunities and essentially no rights.
Same boat. Gay Jew here lol. But I don't look Jewish and don't come off as gay so if I faked my entire life, I'd have a better quality of life in NYC than SF. Doesn't seem like anyone is really doing all that well in SF.
The Nazis would have done genetic testing to determine your ancestry, and probably would have developed testing for homosexuality as well, so the both of us would eventually end up as ash billowing from a crematorium.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
