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

...

Explain your reasoning here.

Which is itself a value from the culture you grew up with.

"I don't want to be killed or enslaved" is not a value specific to Western culture.

For about 150,000 years most humans lived just like the Native Americans did before European explorers made contact with them. How many cultures existed during those years that were lost to the sands of time because they had no written language to record their events, all we have is archeological evidence to suggest how they lived and died.

What use a car, a plane, a computer, to an indigenous person that lives in the Amazon Rainforest?

Well for starters a car is a means of transportation, because in the Amazon Rainforest, there are not a lot of trains, buses and other forms of mass transit, so the best way to travel from point A to point B is with either a car, or because of the Amazon's vast river system, by boat. A plane is a more rapid form of transportation, a computer is a means of communication for indigenous people, and also a source of entertainment, they can download movies and so forth. The fact that you use a computer to communicate with us means that you too also cherish western civilization, because without western civilization we would not have these things. Ever hear of Doctors without borders? I once knew a doctor that traveled to the Amazon Rainforest to treat indigenous people living their. If it weren't for western civilization, there could be no doctors without borders, modern medicine wouldn't exist! People would be grubbing a meager existence out in the Amazon Rainforest and dying young.

I cherish cultures that are responsible for much of the human progress that occurs, advances in science, transportation, communication, and medicine, what is wrong with that?

I never said there was anything wrong with that. You can cherish or value whatever you like. When you hold out what you value as the greatest good at the expense of other possible viewpoints however, that is dangerous thinking to me. My point was in being mindful about this. What you cherish or value or deem as "good" isn't all-encompassing of human experience. Other viewpoints, other values exist. "One man's nightmare is another man's dream" and all that. If you feel the benefits of medicine, science, transportation, and communication outweigh the values of another way of life, one that may not incorporate those things in their value system as you do, well then, there's nothing left to say.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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

I thought he was using the paintings as examples of "Storming the Bastille" and "Establishing a farm in the New World" rather then some kind of empirical proof that the Bastille was indeed stormed.
 

If you feel the benefits of medicine, science, transportation, and communication outweigh the values of another way of life, one that may not incorporate those things in their value system as you do, well then, there's nothing left to say.

We have already seen what happens to cultures that do not value the benefits of medicine, science, transportation, and communication.
 

I thought he was using the paintings as examples of "Storming the Bastille" and "Establishing a farm in the New World" rather then some kind of empirical proof that the Bastille was indeed stormed.

Precisely, In Europe, if you didn't want to live under a King, you had to topple that King with a Revolution and then establish something in his place, the French Revolution demonstrates just how dangerous that can be, especially if you include the Napoleonic War as an extension of that revolution, a lot of people died in it, a lot more than in the American Revolution. You know why that is? Because the American colonists didn't not have top topple King George the Third and his Parliament in order to win their revolution, because they lived on another continent from England, the French didn't have that option, if they wanted to get rid of their King, they had to literally get rid of their king by killing him, and the other European nations reacted to that by trying to reestablish the Bourbons on the throne of France, this precipitated a continental war in Europe, which led to Napoleons March into Russia with the resulting mass destruction and loss of lives that overshadowed the death toll of the American Revolution. So you see, colonization of wilderness areas has its advantages as far as developing new forms of government is concerned. If our ancestors didn't do this, they would be stuck in the same situation as the French people were in. Their first revolution did not succeed, it introduced a new form of tyranny.

North America allowed us to build a country in relative peace compared to what was going on in Europe at that time. Was this good or bad? I think it was an overall good, despite the bad that happened to the Native Americans in our formative years. The Native Americans lived a life that their ancestors lived for thousands of generations every since the first ones crossed the Bering Straight into North American from Asia. When the ice melted, the oceans rose and separated them from contact with the rest of the world, so they continued their stone age existence while Europe and Asia advanced, what happened when the Europeans built their first ocean crossing ships was that they used them, how could you expect otherwise? The use of their ships and their travel across the oceans spread European diseases that the native Americans were previously isolated from and from which they developed no natural resistance to. Once first contact was made, there was no stopping the spreading of those diseases, the Europeans couldn't stop it if they wanted to, because they didn't know how. Despite their advancements, they didn't know how diseases spread or how to stop them. Maybe if we colonized the New World in the 21st century we could have taken precautions to save many lives, but what were the chances of that? History is a learning experience, and we made many mistakes and we can't undo them, we can learn from those mistakes, but those mistakes have been made. We can only move on from here and assess the good from the bad, and when looking back on history, I can see a lot of good that our ancestors have done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

If you don't think you can have problems too, then that's another problem.

No what I think is that it's not my responsibility to reinforce or not reinforce what another poster has identified with. It's up to that poster to sort that out, trying to lay that blame at my feet is your problem.

EDIT: And for the record your road of making him "question" that identificatgion doesn't really seem to be having much of an effect.
 

No what I think is that it's not my responsibility to reinforce or not reinforce what another poster has identified with. It's up to that poster to sort that out, trying to lay that blame at my feet is your problem.
How conservative of you.

EDIT: And for the record your road of making him "question" that identificatgion doesn't really seem to be having much of an effect.
Perhaps, but your road of lecturing "you people" on their collective villainy has a reliably negative effect, so I'll stick to my road regardless.
 

History is a learning experience, and we made many mistakes and we can't undo them, we can learn from those mistakes, but those mistakes have been made. We can only move on from here and assess the good from the bad, and when looking back on history, I can see a lot of good that our ancestors have done.
You're absolutely right that we study history in order to learn from it. Because we can't change the past, there is no point to assessing an act in the past as "good" or "bad" except to say, "Yes, we in the present should do similar things" or "No, we in the present should not do similar things". So we can't avoid the "mistakes" that historical figures have made unless we are willing to say that they were bad. And your project here of downplaying the bad and calling these events "an overall good" is counterproductive to that end. Because I don't think you really believe that we in the present should do similar things like waging wars of conquest, massacring civilians, or forcibly relocating populations -- but that's effectively what you're saying.
 

You're absolutely right that we study history in order to learn from it. Because we can't change the past, there is no point to assessing an act in the past as "good" or "bad" except to say, "Yes, we in the present should do similar things" or "No, we in the present should not do similar things". So we can't avoid the "mistakes" that historical figures have made unless we are willing to say that they were bad. And your project here of downplaying the bad and calling these events "an overall good" is counterproductive to that end. Because I don't think you really believe that we in the present should do similar things like waging wars of conquest, massacring civilians, or forcibly relocating populations -- but that's effectively what you're saying.

Is the end result, the United States of America, a good thing or a bad thing?
What would the World be like if there was no United States of America, would it be better or worse?
The existence of the United States of America depends an a certain number of events in the past happening in a certain way, one fact is inescapable, if Europeans didn't colonize North America, they would have been no United States of America. How do you think we could have gone from monarchy to a representative democracy without colonizing the New World and having some space for these social experiments in democracy?

You see if I say colonizing the New World was a bad thing, then I have to say the creation of the United States was a bad thing, it which case by extension I would be advocating monarchy as the only legitimate form of government. Do you bow to a king? Without the United States to serve as an inspiration, the French Revolution would not have occurred, a French King would be sitting on the throne in Paris, Great Britain would probably have evolved into an absolute monarchy, we would have a class structure of peasants, nobility, and royalty, and no way to escape from that! Agree or disagree?
 

Is the end result, the United States of America, a good thing or a bad thing?
What would the World be like if there was no United States of America, would it be better or worse?
Nobody at the time could or did predict the massive effect the United States would eventually have on world history (regardless of whether it was for better or for worse). Similarly, we can't predict whether our actions now will have those kinds of consequences. So we can't base our decisions on them, and we shouldn't justify the decisions of others in the past based on them. This line of reasoning is not so much "wrong" as it is not useful.

You see if I say colonizing the New World was a bad thing, then I have to say the creation of the United States was a bad thing...
No, that doesn't follow. You can say one without the other.

...it which case by extension I would be advocating monarchy as the only legitimate form of government.
No, that definitely doesn't follow. You can advocate that things which exist are illegitimate and that things which do not exist ought to.

Do you bow to a king? Without the United States to serve as an inspiration, the French Revolution would not have occurred, a French King would be sitting on the throne in Paris, Great Britain would probably have evolved into an absolute monarchy, we would have a class structure of peasants, nobility, and royalty, and no way to escape from that! Agree or disagree?
Disagree. I think you should read up some more on the events leading up to the French Revolution and the history of British democracy, because both were well underway before the first shots were fired at Lexington. In particular, Britain had already tried absolute monarchy, overthrown it, established a republican dictatorship, overthrown that, and finally settled on a parliamentary system with a figurehead king. The democratic ideals born of this experience -- to wit, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes -- were much more an inspiration for the United States than the other way around.

But all that's beside the point. Even if the United States really were the fountainhead of all the good in the modern world, you would still not be obliged to defend any of the bad things Europeans did in the Americas or anywhere else.
 

The chain of causality is clear, if we went back in time to stop the colonization of the New World by Europeans, then the United States would cease to exist and never have been. Do you deny this? How could we have a United States without a North America? How would you get the kings and queens of Europe to relinquish their power so we could form a United States of Europe? There are many cultural and language differences between the various states of Europe, I just don't see them getting together to form a Federal republic all by themselves. Perhaps one could try to do what Napoleon tried to do, but Napoleon wanted to be Emperor of Europe, I don't see that as much better, he was interested in centralizing his power not in making Democracy happen, and besides a lot of people died trying to conquer an Empire for Napoleon or to defend against Napoleon's invasion, a lot of dying and suffering to make a new society, and the person in charge simply wanted to maximize power for himself.

The French Revolution was waged by peasants not just against the King, but against the established upper classes, and their was a desire for revenge and to get even with the upper classes through a rein of terror and mass executions of those upper classes. There was a lot of evil that resulted from the French Revolution, was this evil greater than that visited upon the Native Americans by American colonists. How do you put both evils on a scale and decide which ones were greater, and thus which ones to avoid?
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Related Articles

Remove ads

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top