Should D&D be more American?

Status
Not open for further replies.
tleilaxu said:
but the real question is: why should americans CARE how the british pronounce anything? It's been a hundred years since the UK mattered. :D :D :D

Ouch. But you need to edit out those smiles 'cause it's completely true. The poor Limeys... talking about their "local history" and the good old days of being a world power.

Still, they've been good to us over the years. What do you say, Americans... let's give them Puerto Rico or something! Or maybe let them invade Canada. Go ahead... we won't stop you.

But please, let's not pick on the Belgians anymore. I think Monty Python said it best with their top 5 list of derogatory terms for the Belgians:

5. Let's not call them anything, let's just ignore them
4. There's nothing more derogatory than Belgians
3. The Sprouts
2. The Phlegms
... and #1 ... Miserable Fat Belgian Bastards!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Do we count the numbers of mistakes here? Gee it would just be so easy and so fun.

1. Native American indians quite often deforested large reason of North and South America.

2. The small pox blankets story is little better than urban legend and in fact if proven true would point at the British not at Americans since the act happened long before there was an America and was supposed to have been done by British military personel.

3. Indian tribes as a general rule fought wars of genocide against their neighbors. The Indians that met the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock were in fact little better than refugees who had recently fled their native lands to avoid complete extermination by their indian foes. This generally came from the Indian view that no one owned land. Instead you merely controlled whatever land you had the military power to control. So the indians of most tribes were a hell of a lot more "imperial" than the colonists ever were.

Want to try for round two where the prizes are really big?


jhanzur said:


No, in fact, it might have been a much less industialized, much more ecologically sound "America" for "Native Americans", relatively free from such things as smallpox infested blankets or Empirialism*.
 
Last edited:

DocMoriartty said:
Do we count the numbers of mistakes here? Gee it would just be so easy and so fun.

1. Native American indians quite often deforested large reason of North and South America.

Minus the stip mining, ozone depleting cfcs, nuclear waste, auto emission pollution, etc.

DocMoriartty said:

2. The small pox blankets story is little better than urban legend and in fact if proven true would point at the British not at Americans since the act happened long before there was an America and was supposed to have been done by British military personel..

A myth maybe, and if proven true WOULD point at the British, which was my point. Don't skim posts without seeing where they are coming from.

"On the plan to use smallpox as a weapon against the Indians; Parkman, in _The Conspiracy of Pontiac_ (Vol 2, pgs 39-40, in the new Bison edition) discussed this proposal. The idea, apparently, came from Lord Amherst, in a letter of orders to Col Bouquet, saying "Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occassion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them". Bocquet replied that he would try and use infected blankets as a means of introducing the disease among the Indians, but was wary of the effects that it would have on his own men. Bouquet then proposes using- in "the Spanish method"- a combination of hunting dogs, rangers and light horsemen, in an effort to "effectually extirpate or remove that vermin" at little risk to his own men. Amherst readily agreed, hoping that the use of smallpox infested blankets, as well as any other method be used that "can serve to extirpate this execrable race", although he did not think that the hunting dog idea was practical. Parkman states that there is no evidence that Bouquet ever used the smallpox plan, although an epedemic raged among the Ohio Indians "a few months after" the July 1763 correspondence."


DocMoriartty said:

3. Indian tribes as a general rule fought wars of genocide against their neighbors. The Indians that met the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock were in fact little better than refugees who had recently fled their native lands to avoid complete extermination by their indian foes. This generally came from the Indian view that no one owned land. Instead you merely controlled whatever land you had the military power to control. So the indians of most tribes were a hell of a lot more "imperial" than the colonists ever were.

Population control? Yes our modern world needs some.


DocMoriartty said:

Want to try for round two where the prizes are really big?

huh?
 

Can't we just agree that all people are as bad as any other?

When I lived in Boston, my friends made fun of my Canadian accent. I eventually taught them how to use "eh" properly. (As a statement that you want confirmation on - "Nice day, eh?") The funny thing is, I had less of an accent than they did. Sure, I said "Aboot" and "Oot" (and, since we played Star Wars, "Zed-95 Headhunter"), but that's not as bad as, "I pahked the cah at Havahd Yahd."
 

jhanzur said:
Minus the stip mining, ozone depleting cfcs, nuclear waste, auto emission pollution, etc.

Not that I'm really bashing anyone, but do you think anyone who couldn't strip mine, make cars, or nuclear plants wouldn't? To think otherwise is quite racist.

edit: speelling
 
Last edited:

jhanzur said:


Population control? Yes our modern world needs some.

huh?

Genocide is population control? That is such a sick and repulsive comment that I am no longer going to respond to this thread and very much suggest that the moderators close this thread down.

You ARE one sick puppy. Hitler could have found a job for you.
 



DocMoriartty said:
Do you have a better idea for a guy that thinks genocide is a good idea for population control?

No, I mean it works on so many levels. Fascism, Mussolini making the trains run on time, etc.

If you think your country has a population problem, move to Canada. We've got a ton of open tundra.
 

That is because so few people can find a use for open tundra beyond filming nature movies.


LostSoul said:


No, I mean it works on so many levels. Fascism, Mussolini making the trains run on time, etc.

If you think your country has a population problem, move to Canada. We've got a ton of open tundra.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top