• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

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?
You're asking what was necessary to create a political entity called "the United States" whose (non-enslaved) population was of European descent. That is not the same question as asking what was necessary to bring about modern constitutional democracy. It's the difference between asking what was necessary for a particular Ohioan named "Neil" to be born, and what was necessary to land humans on the moon.

How do you put both evils on a scale and decide which ones were greater, and thus which ones to avoid?
I don't think I'm taking a radical position when I say that I do not support either genocides or mass political executions, and think that we should avoid both.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Thomas Bowman

First Post
You're asking what was necessary to create a political entity called "the United States" whose (non-enslaved) population was of European descent. That is not the same question as asking what was necessary to bring about modern constitutional democracy. It's the difference between asking what was necessary for a particular Ohioan named "Neil" to be born, and what was necessary to land humans on the moon.

I don't think I'm taking a radical position when I say that I do not support either genocides or mass political executions, and think that we should avoid both.

Peasant rebellions, mostly do not end up with a constitutional democratic republic, most peasants who are trying to overthrow the upper classes don't know how to make a democracy work, and by the way, democracy was invented by slave owners in Athens, it wasn't invented by slaves, peasants, and or serfs. All the slaves know how to do is get revenge on their former masters if they manage to overthrow them, they are not educated enough to know about balance of powers and how to create a stable republic, peasants and serfs aren't much better, they know how to farm and that's about it. If their overlords are brutal enough to drive them into rebellion, the last thing that's on their mind is how to create a stable democracy, the result of most peasant rebellions that are successful is another dictatorship. the environment of North America was the perfect place to experiment with democracy, and the result was the United States of America. The people rebelling weren't peasants, but frontiersmen and landowners, that is a big difference from peasants! The United States had lots of land to make most people landowners instead of landownership being a mark of privilege and class as it was in Europe. There also was a scarcity of labor in North America, feudalism wouldn't have worked here! Also remember the United States got rid of slavery about 80 years after its birth, but it did not introduce slavery.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Thomas Bowman

First Post
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.

No, that doesn't follow. You can say one without the other.

No, that definitely doesn't follow. You can advocate that things which exist are illegitimate and that things which do not exist ought to.

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.
Were they? Seems to me that the King of France was supporting the American colonists in their fight against Great Britain and the French Revolution came after that. Marie Antoinette was a supporter of the American cause, even though she was Queen of France, the French Revolution ended her life and that of her husband the King. I don't think those two could have supported the American Revolution if they were already dead.
 

Were they? Seems to me that the King of France was supporting the American colonists in their fight against Great Britain and the French Revolution came after that. Marie Antoinette was a supporter of the American cause, even though she was Queen of France, the French Revolution ended her life and that of her husband the King. I don't think those two could have supported the American Revolution if they were already dead.
By 1775, the philosophe movement was in full swing. The writings of Montesquieu and Diderot and Voltaire and Rousseau were in wide circulation. France was in the middle of a financial crisis, and resentment against the aristocracy and the king in particular was rising. Yes, Louis and Marie's heads were still on their shoulders, but France was well on its way to a political upheaval. The French Revolution was all but inevitable in some form, irrespective of what happened four thousand miles away across the Atlantic.

I will add further that the French Revolution was famously an uprising of the bourgeoisie. That word does not mean "peasant". Robespierre and Danton were lawyers, Saint-Just was a writer, and Napoleon of course was a military officer. None of the revolutionary leaders lacked for education.
 

Thomas Bowman

First Post
By 1775, the philosophe movement was in full swing. The writings of Montesquieu and Diderot and Voltaire and Rousseau were in wide circulation. France was in the middle of a financial crisis, and resentment against the aristocracy and the king in particular was rising. Yes, Louis and Marie's heads were still on their shoulders, but France was well on its way to a political upheaval. The French Revolution was all but inevitable in some form, irrespective of what happened four thousand miles away across the Atlantic.

I will add further that the French Revolution was famously an uprising of the bourgeoisie. That word does not mean "peasant". Robespierre and Danton were lawyers, Saint-Just was a writer, and Napoleon of course was a military officer. None of the revolutionary leaders lacked for education.

And what exactly did the French Revolution accomplish? Instead of having a French King, they get a French Emperor that wants to conquer Europe and Russia! Do you know how many people died in the French Revolution and in Napoleon's war?

"The total death toll for the French Revolution is over 1,000,000. This total includes all those killed in action during the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleonic wars took a lot of more life. As an example in Aspern Napoleon lost 20 000 and Austrians 23 000. These are all victims of same cause."

The total population of the 13 original colonies was just 3 million.

"Motivation was a major asset. The Patriots wanted to win; over 200,000 fought in the war; 25,000 died. The British expected the Loyalists to do much of the fighting, but they did much less than expected."

Both from Wikipedia.

You know what France had after 1,000,000 of its citizens fought and died during the French Revolution?
A King!

Without the United States as an example, I don't think the French would have attempted to establish a republic with no expectation of success. With the example of American to look to, they had hope that they might succeed, but why should a French Peasant sacrifice his life when he could just play it safe the way generations of peasants before him did and stay alive? After the American revolution, French Peasants were more likely to storm the Bastille, but without it, history going back to the Dark Ages would just continue has it has been going.
 

pemerton

Legend
North America allowed us to build a country in relative peace
Should I ask who the us is here?

Does the conquest of one group of people, and the enslavement of another, count as "relative peace"?

Obviously history can't be undone, but it can at least be worth trying to think about it with a degree of seriousness.

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.
As far as British democracy is concerned, if genuinely universal male franchise is the yardstick, then I would say that the United Kingdom became a democracy in 1911.

And what exactly did the French Revolution accomplish?
Well, for better or worse, it invented the political forms of modernity.
 

Without the United States as an example, I don't think the French would have attempted to establish a republic with no expectation of success.
"O nation of France, you are not made to receive an example, but to set it!"
- Jean-Paul Rabaut de Saint-Étienne, French revolutionary

And indeed, they did almost nothing the Americans had done.

You have to remember that Europeans in general, and the notoriously Francocentric French in particular, viewed whatever happened in the Americas as a sideshow. The population numbers that you yourself just cited may provide some clue as to why. So claiming that an 18th-Century French political movement was inspired by the American Revolution is rather akin to claiming that a modern American political movement was inspired by events in the Philippines.

(On the other hand, they did do a lot that the English had done, back in 1649-1659. Not that any self-respecting Frenchman would ever own up to following an English example, but if you want to know where they really got the idea for beheading their king and establishing a republic that rapidly devolved into a dictatorship, you should probably start there.)

With the example of American to look to, they had hope that they might succeed, but why should a French Peasant sacrifice his life when he could just play it safe the way generations of peasants before him did and stay alive?
You appear to have missed the bit where I pointed out that the French Revolution was not a peasant revolt. In fact, in the outlying provinces of France, to preserve the lifestyle they had always known just like you said, the peasants revolted against the Revolution. Multiple times.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Celebrim

Legend
"The total death toll for the French Revolution is over 1,000,000. This total includes all those killed in action during the Napoleonic Wars.

I have no real interest in getting into the particulars of the debate you are having, but I want to add some further context.

If you add together the deaths during the revolution, with the deaths caused by the adventurous wars undertaken by the new Republic, and the deaths undertaken under Napoleonic wars, which most historians agree forms a single continuous period of warfare stemming from the same cause (political upheaval in France), then you don't get the number one million. Most historians put the actual number at between 4.5 and 7.5 millions. That number is higher than the War of Spanish Succession, the War of Austrian Succession, and the Seven Years War combined, and was by far the worst of the new practice of worldwide wars until the "First" World War happened about 100 years later. (By my count, the "first" World War was actually the fifth to quality for that tittle, making the "Second" actually the sixth.)
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top