The Journey To...North America, Part Two

In writing these articles I have come to understand how many people are voiceless in the collective imaginary land that is role playing games. I hope that these articles make our hobby and industry a place where more people are welcomed and encouraged to become involved. Which brings me to North America, the part the second.

In writing these articles I have come to understand how many people are voiceless in the collective imaginary land that is role playing games. I hope that these articles make our hobby and industry a place where more people are welcomed and encouraged to become involved. Which brings me to North America, the part the second.


I spoke to a friend of mine and her words still resonate with me. I asked Susan what she might want in terms of how her people are portrayed in role playing. She replied that she would not want her people's traditions taken for granted. Sacred is sacred. In struggling to find a theme for this article, her words helped me focus in on what is important. So I will begin, before talking about the people, with my "How would I use this?" section.

It is not hard for those of us descended from European, especially Western European ancestry, to relate to the sacred. Stonehenge comes to mind. Beowulf and the legend of Arthur. Joan of Arc. The stand at Thermopylae. Rome at its best and at its worst. A host of cultural touchstones that help give us some common context and cultural language. They literally are sprinkled through our role playing; ideas from history and mythology that fuel how we play.


So if I were going to run a campaign among the North American native tribes, prior to European arrival, it would be heavily focused on those ideas that they found and still find as sacred. It would be an intimate campaign, with no Vecna or dragons or Sauron. Perhaps a band of folk who have suffered loss who wander from place to place, helping others and battling legends. The magic would be subtle and beautiful and full of mystery. It would deal with the idea of what is sacred and how the sacred shapes the lives of the characters. Of course this can be taken into science fiction as well and Shadowrun does some of this with its setting.

What is sacred to the native tribes of North America? A best we can generalize because there are over 500 recognized tribes in the United States, including many in Alaska. Susan mentioned a few things: The Dance, The Ceremony, The Animals, and of course The Land itself. In our modern times issues of land ownership and management have come up again as natural resources are found on tribal lands. To the native peoples, land is more than just a means of making a living or a sign of prosperity. It represents a means of preserving cultural history and identity. Indigenous folk see themselves as protectors of the land and everything associated with it. Equally important are the spiritual and religious aspects of the land and specifically sacred spaces. These sacred places are integral to the tribes spiritual practices and when the land is disrespected, this insults the people and their beliefs. They also believes it angers the land. This should be an important concept in any campaign run using native peoples.


I would recommend talking to native folk about their own tribes and tribal traditions instead of relying on just Internet searches. In general most scholars break the native peoples of North America, excluding Mexico (covered here) into ten different cultural areas. These are the Arctic, Subarctic, Northeast, Southeast, Plains, Southwest, Great Basin, California, Northwest Coast, and Plateau. These cultures had distinct lifestyles from one another, with some being agricultural and others more nomadic. Tragically some have been lost along the way and that is something we should never forget. If we as games masters and content creators can keep them alive in our games, then that is one way of continuing their legacy into the future.

​contributed by Sean Hillman
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sean Hillman

Sean Hillman

Derren

Hero
Emphasis mine... Let's just gloss over that.

Gloss over what?
Just because the British used it as a weapon from time to time doesn't mean that they are responsible for all pox deaths of the natives and neither did they, or any other European, introduce the pox to the American continent in the first place.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Derren

Hero
Wait are you claiming smallpox didn't come from Europe?

Edit: And for clarity I am speaking of N. America but I think you already knew that.

I forgot the word "consciously". Too quick fingers.
The Europeans did not bring the disease over to kill natives. It just came with them.
 

Thomas Bowman

First Post
Emphasis mine... Let's just gloss over that... along with the fact they brought it to America.

For what reason would they know that the diseases they carried would kill them, and why weren't the Colonists afraid of Native American diseases killing them? Maybe because the European colonists didn't know about evolution or germ theory, you are trying to hold someone responsible for something they didn't know about, that's like arresting everyone who sneezes at an airport, because they may be carrying communicable diseases.

Spreading Old World diseases to the New World was an accident, that wasn't murder. Europeans didn't sail across the ocean to kill Indians, that wasn't why they came.
 

Thomas Bowman

First Post
Yep because recording the history of the people you are responsible for nearly eradicating is totally the good part about the fact that you nearly wiped them all out...

images


EDIT: If anyone needs an example of white privilege you need look no further than this post. The privilege of patting yourself on the back for having recorded a people's history while simultaneously wiping most of them off the face of the earth... with a side of justification that they all would have eventually died anyway...

What would have happened to Pocahontas if no Europeans ever came?
The answer is that she would have grown old and died, and today no one would have remembered who she was.
 

EDIT: If anyone needs an example of white privilege you need look no further than this post. The privilege of patting yourself on the back for having recorded a people's history while simultaneously wiping most of them off the face of the earth... with a side of justification that they all would have eventually died anyway...
Bowman's problem is that he is identifying with European imperialists four centuries dead. Your problem is that you are reinforcing that identification rather than questioning it.
 


Thomas Bowman

First Post
Bowman's problem is that he is identifying with European imperialists four centuries dead. Your problem is that you are reinforcing that identification rather than questioning it.

just putting some balance into it, since the popular thing to do is to attack the Europeans and not question the native Americans, even when they do things like Human sacrifice, people say that is their culture, so its not our place to judge them. I don't think the Europeans are on balance any worse than the natives they displaced. The Europeans back then aren't use, and neither are the Native Americans back then the same as the Native Americans today. Native Americans would be giving up a lot of things they took for granted if they tried going back to their old ways! For one thing they couldn't go to a modern hospital and stay true to their old beliefs, they wouldn't have use of a car, or a bus or a train, as Europeans brought those things, they would have to give up their cellphones and their computers, and I'm sure native Americans today have a lot of those things. People tend to romanticize the Native Americans, and vilify the European/American colonist/settler.

Now just to make things clear, the Europeans didn't come here to kill Indians, they came here for new opportunities, in many cases to escape oppression in Europe, the only other avenue for them was to overthrow the king, like what happened in France during the French Revolution. A lot of fighting was involved there, much safer to find some more land in the New World and establish a farm.
It was either this:
th


Or this:
th

So which would you pick? Would you rather "storm the Bastille" or establish your own homestead in North America? Seems to me the former would involve a lot more fighting than the later.
 


just putting some balance into it...
I think it's pretty obvious what you're doing here, and "balanced" is not how I'd describe it, but just a couple of rhetorical questions to ponder:

(1) Why does it bother you so much that "the popular thing to do is to attack the Europeans"?

(2) You know paintings are imaginary, and not good historical documentation, right?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top