What genres/themes do you associate with South America? (Or Africa? Asia? Australia?) [Archive]

Terraoblivion

2013-01-22, 02:41 PM

Europe is important to world history because they were the only group of peoples to actually care enough to try for world conquest;

You mean apart from that Genghis Khan guy who conquered like a quarter of Asia and his sons added another quarter, plus some chunks of Europe and would have gone to Africa too if the Arabs hadn't beaten them, right? And that Zheng He fellow who went out with a fleet with tens of thousands of crew, bureaucrats and soldiers to demand tribute from literally the entire world outside China. Or what about the Arab Caliphate which conquered the entire middle east, North Africa, Iran, eastern Anatolia and Spain before the initial impetus ran out. Or maybe the Ottomans who grabbed most the the middle east, the Balkans and southern Ukraine. I seem to recall the Incas having the entire western slope of the Andes as well and a fellow known as Timur Lenk who conquered pretty much all of Central Asia and northern India. And these are just the big ones who spring to mind, so it doesn't really sound like a lack of drive to me that only Europeans managed to subjugate that much of the world.

East Asia's memorable for China being a gazillion years more advanced than Europe for a long time and then not doing anything with it on a world scale (also Japan and samurai);

You mean apart from colonizing the mountains and jungles of southern China, conquering Mongolia, Tibet and the richest part of Central Asia and keeping those areas for centuries? Because in addition to that they shaped the culture of all of east Asia and was one of the two main influences on South East Asia. During the 17th and 18th century it also formed the nexus of the entire world trade, draining the rest of the planet for silver in exchange for tea, silk and porcelain. That's kind of a pretty impressive thing for one country to do.

And if you've ever watched the news, you might notice that they're kinda one of the most factors in the economy these days. Before that there was the whole thing with Shanghai being the home of one sixth of all international trade in the world for a couple of decades and some rather violent political turmoil for several decades more. Finally, the fact that the country represents around one sixth of the entire population of the planet and has represented more or less that much for centuries makes it kinda important what happens there, even if it doesn't spill over the borders.

the mideast is notable because vast tracts of desert are worth dying for, damnit;

And, you know, being the origin of the two largest religions in the world, as well as the origin of European and west Asian cultures and traditions in general.

But South America? ...sorry, but except when other nations are interacting with it (Spanish invasions, Nazis hiding there, the Falkland Islands war), nothing really important or memorable happens there on a world scale, except the Amazon rainforest, but even that falls primarily under outsiders going in rather than natives of the area (and I mean immigrant natives, too, like modern Brazil) doing anything noteworthy enough to warrant attention.

You mean apart from a stone age people managing to build an empire stretching for thousands of miles through some of the most inhospitable mountains on the planet without ever using either wheels or writing?

I'm sure that South Americans would tremendously disagree.

Apart from the obvious fact that South America matters to South Americans and there's quite a few of them, Brazil was the main destination of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, giving it a rather large impact on West Africa. In more modern times Brazil has joined India and China in the league of NICs throwing their weight around.

Then again, I'm sure that the peoples of Trinidad and Tobago would disagree about their relative notability as well.

I would say they ought to, Trinidad and Tobago is rather important to inhabitants of Trinidad and Tobago, so if they considered it unimportant they'd be rather off. As for global or even regional impact, it probably isn't unfair to say that the country matters comparatively less than, say, Nigeria or Pakistan.

Grinner

2013-01-22, 02:48 PM

Usually I associate Africa with tribalism and shamans. Often, it plays out as medieval fantasy stripped of common icons, like castles, dragons, and knights, and transplanted into a jungle environment.

I did once read an excellent RPG called Degenesis. It comprehensively documents the game world as Earth after a catastrophic series of meteor strikes. I found the descriptions of post-apocalyptic Africa particularly intriguing.

It's available freely under Creative Commons, and it was published in English by the same guys behind Eclipse Phase. However, I can only find the original German version (http://www.degenesis.de/download/DEGENESIS_Grundregelwerk.pdf) at the moment.

RPGuru1331

2013-01-22, 02:53 PM

South America: the forgotten continent. Sad to say, but it really is.
...

Africa's important to world history 'cause of Egypt and that whole slavery thing.
Don't forget the vast amounts of wealth extracted by predominantly european companies on a continuing basis.

India's nearly as forgotten as South America but at least they get Buddhism and Ghandi
And, you know, the trade goods, and the intermediary for spice trading, the invention of the printing press, the invention of zero...

East Asia's memorable for China being a gazillion years more advanced than Europe for a long time and then not doing anything with it on a world scale
And the basis for many of the advances Europe relied upon. Also, do you know who Zheng He is? And really, missing China's relevance now? Or in centuries prior to the 20th?

the mideast is notable because vast tracts of desert are worth dying for, damnit;
You're kind of leaving out the vast empires that dominated european and asian politics for centuries.

inner Asia, everyone likes Mongolians and Siberia;
You mean like that Genghis Khan guy who may be 1/6th of Europe's ancestor? I guess he's kinda important, for setting up a relatively innovative, if short lived, empire larger than that of the Romans...

and Australia, the world remembers for being Australia, itself a memorable feat.
...

But South America? ...sorry, but except when other nations are interacting with it (Spanish invasions, Nazis hiding there, the Falkland Islands war),
Incan gold, along with the Aztecan gold, destroyed a hweming empire and completely altered the balance of power in Europe for it.

And good lord, do you know how ridiculous it is to ignore a continent because 'the only thing that happened there is that other people messed with it'? Does it not occur to you that people don't mess with these states for giggles? South America scared the hell out of the USA in the post-WWII period. Not for particularly rational reasons, sure, but what's that matter?

nothing really important or memorable happens there on a world scale, except the Amazon rainforest, but even that falls primarily under outsiders going in rather than natives of the area (and I mean immigrant natives, too, like modern Brazil) doing anything noteworthy enough to warrant attention.
Apparently, beef, gold, or oil don't count when they come from anyplace south of the equator...

Anyway. Whitewashed? Sure. But also true: South America is a forgotten continent on the world stage.
...Okay, even if you were correct, that wouldn't have made the idea that the 'conquistadors and victorians who explore d africa and south america primarily dealt with the elements' true.

So yes, white-washed, but it's the only thing I know.
The really obvious thing to me was referring to conquistadors, and not, you know, the part where they were engaging in conquista...

You mean apart from a stone age people managing to build an empire stretching for thousands of miles through some of the most inhospitable mountains on the planet without ever using either wheels or writing?
And possibly creating 3-dimensional writing. Either that or Quipu are just really good mnemonics, we're not really sure.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 03:01 PM

You mean apart from that Genghis Khan guy

Actually, yes, I do mean apart from him. Among other things, his empire did not long survive his death, and besides, for any given set, there will always be outliers.

And that Zheng He fellow who went out with a fleet with tens of thousands of crew, bureaucrats and soldiers to demand tribute from literally the entire world outside China.

Yes, that treasure fleet which was never popular in China and was scrapped pretty quickly so that China could settle into isolation and stagnation. Also note that they were a treasure fleet, not a conquest fleet. They weren't trying to impose Chinese culture anywhere.

Or what about the Arab Caliphate which conquered the entire middle east, North Africa, Iran, eastern Anatolia and Spain before the initial impetus ran out.

Yup, impetus ran out and they collapsed on themselves into...

Or maybe the Ottomans who grabbed most the the middle east, the Balkans and southern Ukraine.

Before losing most of it. The Ottoman Empire spent the last century of its life as a pawn of the much more powerful, world-spanning empires of Russia and Britain, before making a desperate bid for relevancy in World War I that drastically backfired.

I seem to recall the Incas having the entire western slope of the Andes

But never actually expanded outside of their local habitat. Basically, they stopped as soon as the terrain starting looking different from their hometown. Europe didn't.

Now, to be fair, I actually otherwise specifically excluded American empires because they were about 3,000 years behind Afro-Eurasia; it's not a fair comparison.

as well and a fellow known as Timur Lenk who conquered pretty much all of Central Asia and northern India. And these are just the big ones who spring to mind, so it doesn't really sound like a lack of drive to me that only Europeans managed to subjugate that much of the world.

Did you ever wonder how? Remember that Europe was ass-backwards compared to most of the rest of North Africa and Eurasia for most of its history, and it's not like they had numbers of their side, either. China's population has always been stupidly huge. But it was not China suppressing Britain that lead to the Opium Wars.

It's a fact of history that most people don't really want to acknowledge because of the racist overtones, but the simple fact of the matter is that from about 1492 onwards (actually, probably earlier - when did the Portuguese start setting up trade colonies in Africa and the far east?), "World History" and "European History" become synonymous terms.

It's not a racial thing. China could have easily done it, if China had wanted to, but China didn't. India is about the same size as Europe and was just as fractious for most of its history, so we can't argue that it was the conflict in Europe that spurred on advancement because there was no shortage of it in India.

It's easy to claim that discovering the Americas might have had something to do with it, but pretty much the primary things that the Americas were exploited for was a place to send excess population and a place to import gold from, at a drastic effect on European economies (Spain never really recovered from the more than 800% drop in the value of gold that their colonies caused).

Western society pretty much just...lucked out, getting a number of things going right all at the same time coupled with a bunch of things going wrong for their neighbors. But that luck means that Western society is, simply, put, more important to history than any other society.

And if you've ever watched the news, you might notice that they're kinda one of the most factors in the economy these days.

Yes, but if you brought a Chinese person from 100 years ago and showed him China today, he'd consider it to be basically indistinguishable from a Western society except that he can read the street signs.

Also, China has a major economy primarily because they do all the manufacturing work for the western world. They utterly depend on Western markets - though, to be fair, Western markets utterly depend on Chinese workers. So it's a give and take. Point being that the China today is much more Western than Chinese.

Put another way, which do you think more people wear: a sedge hat, or a baseball cap?

one sixth of the entire population of the planet and has represented more or less that much for centuries makes it kinda important what happens there, even if it doesn't spill over the borders.

Today, sure, but I'm talking about the world stage throughout history. Namely: China's only been on it since the 60's, as the Zeng He treasure fleets were, again, a one-time occurance that were never popular in China and quickly scrapped. Europe, by comparison, has been consistently on the world stage in one form or another for about 500 years.

And, you know, being the origin of the two largest religions in the world, as well as the origin of European and west Asian cultures and traditions in general.

But they're not the ones who spread them across the world. Put another way, which do you suppose is more important: Greece, or Rome? Greece came up with all sorts of advances in terms of philosophy and science and so on, and sort of spread them around its general area. Rome came up with practically nothing on its own, but spread everything that Greece had come up with across the Mediterranean, Europe, and North Africa, and further gave a basically stable climate for it to exist and simmer in for about 1,000 years.

Having invented something, the inventor ceases to be important, and the messenger is the one who truly changes the world.

You mean apart from a stone age people managing to build an empire stretching for thousands of miles through some of the most inhospitable mountains on the planet without ever using either wheels or writing?

Not nearly as hard as it sounds when you've been at it for 10,000+ years.

Apart from the obvious fact that South America matters to South Americans and there's quite a few of them, Brazil was the main destination of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, giving it a rather large impact on West Africa. In more modern times Brazil has joined India and China in the league of NICs throwing their weight around.

And we hear about India and China much more. In that particular contest, Brazil has settled into a very firm bronze.

Also, I acknowledge that South America is important to South Americans. Of course it is. I'm talking about the world stage, however, the Terran zeitgeist and public consciousness.

For example, until this thread I'll bet that you completely forgot that Uruguay even exists, let alone anything they've ever done.

...

Again, I'm talking more about world consciousness than any actual impact that they're making. Yes, South America, deforestation. But the fact of the matter is that the majority of the world doesn't really care unless they've recently watched Fern Gully, which takes place in Australia anyway.

Also:

You mean like that Genghis Khan guy who may be 1/6th of Europe's ancestor?

Asia.

Terraoblivion

2013-01-22, 03:02 PM

Apparently, beef, gold, or oil don't count when they come from anyplace south of the equator...

Don't forget soy beans and derived products. Soy cultivation accounts for almost as much deforrestation of the Amazon as cattle and given that there aren't that many vegetarians in the west, it seems likely it's driven by Asian demand.

The LOBster

2013-01-22, 03:05 PM

I mainly associate Australia with being fulla all sorts of deadly critters.

Kinda like that Australia Turned up to 11 thread someone posted in world-building :smalltongue:

Morph Bark

2013-01-22, 03:29 PM

This might be getting a bit too removed from what themes certain places make people think of and too close to... well, things that are not that. Kindly move a little back in that direction again?

I mainly associate Australia with being fulla all sorts of deadly critters.

Kinda like that Australia Turned up to 11 thread someone posted in world-building :smalltongue:

Oh my. It's almost as if someone had the same idea as me!

:smallwink:

RPGuru1331

2013-01-22, 03:35 PM

Before losing most of it. The Ottoman Empire spent the last century of its life as a pawn of the much more powerful, world-spanning empires of Russia and Britain, before making a desperate bid for relevancy in World War I that drastically backfired.
...So? Europe spent a thousand years in a pathetic state. No power has, or will, dominate the planet forever. Also, this isn't about everyone being more important than Europe now, this is about you acting like everyone else was only ever important for trifles, while Europe (and presumably the USA) contributed everything of value to the planet.

Actually, yes, I do mean apart from him. Among other things, his empire did not long survive his death, and besides, for any given set, there will always be outliers.
The golden horde and ilkhanate were by no means irrelevant merely because they never reached the heights of Genghis Khan's empire.

Yes, that treasure fleet which was never popular in China and was scrapped pretty quickly so that China could settle into isolation and stagnation. Also note that they were a treasure fleet, not a conquest fleet. They weren't trying to impose Chinese culture anywhere.
He converted a huge number of people to his religion, and spread Chinese culture whether he intended to or not.

But never actually expanded outside of their local habitat. Basically, they stopped as soon as the terrain starting looking different from their hometown. Europe didn't.
The british principally expanded by knocking over local powers and installing a friendly government at the top, not by actually living in the places they ruled. The French were similar.

Now, to be fair, I actually otherwise specifically excluded American empires because they were about 3,000 years behind Afro-Eurasia; it's not a fair comparison.
Maya had better crop cultivation and drought protection than Europe, they just got nailed with larger droughts because they lived in an equatorial zone. The Inca built a massive road network in terrain the Romans had difficulty putting up roads at all in. Just because Civ taught you that technology is hierarchical doesn't make it so.

It's not a racial thing. China could have easily done it, if China had wanted to, but China didn't. India is about the same size as Europe and was just as fractious for most of its history, so we can't argue that it was the conflict in Europe that spurred on advancement because there was no shortage of it in India.
It was primarily that Europe had very little of what it wanted or needed and HAD to look outside its own borders for so long, and being unable to actually walk to its destinations, that lead to europe developing the tools they needed for global conquest.

Western society pretty much just...lucked out, getting a number of things going right all at the same time coupled with a bunch of things going wrong for their neighbors. But that luck means that Western society is, simply, put, more important to history than any other society.
Only if you pretend the last 300 years matters (because Europeans spent about 200 of the last 500 years primarily sucking up to other global powers), but the 7500 years of human civilization before that was for practice. In a thousand years, someone else will be treating notions of european importance as provincial while their own country and continent is ascendant.

But they're not the ones who spread them across the world
...You realize that Europeans only spread and generally practiced one of those religions, right?

Having invented something, the inventor ceases to be important, and the messenger is the one who truly changes the world.
Well, that's how it works when it makes the mythical 'western world' look better, anyway. But it doesn't stop them from say, taking credit for guns (Despite the ottomans being the messenger there, for instance)

So it's a give and take. Point being that the China today is much more Western than Chinese.
Sure, if you pretend that the good stuff is 'western'...

Yes, but if you brought a Chinese person from 100 years ago and showed him China today, he'd consider it to be basically indistinguishable from a Western society except that he can read the street signs.
So... you think a turn of the century USian or European would really recognize anything but the landmarks of their current countries?

...
Oh, so you wanted me to play into your fantasies that there was nothing of importance there. Alrighty then. I'll just go ahead and pretend that the USA didn't worry about South America ever.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 03:50 PM

Sure, if you pretend that the good stuff is 'western'...

Hey, bad stuff is western too. The Holocaust, chattel slavery, etc.

I'm not holding Western culture up as ideal, simply dominant and, therefore, most important.

The british principally expanded by knocking over local powers and installing a friendly government at the top, not by actually living in the places they ruled. The French were similar.

True and false. They did tend to maintain garrisons of their own troops as well as relying on locals; and of course places like Canada and Australia and the Americas, especially North America, were thoroughly colonized with Westerners.

Only if you pretend the last 300 years matters (because Europeans spent about 200 of the last 500 years primarily sucking up to other global powers), but the 7500 years of human civilization before that was for practice.

I think that every day of history is a practice run to this very moment in time. The past is important, but the past has also already happened and can't be changed. The future is important, but we won't get there if we don't start building it now. The present time is the most important time in history.

It was primarily that Europe had very little of what it wanted or needed and HAD to look outside its own borders for so long, and being unable to actually walk to its destinations, that lead to europe developing the tools they needed for global conquest.

Yes. That's why Western society is dominant and, therefore, most important.

...You realize that Europeans only spread and generally practiced one of those religions, right?

And it is the largest with, last time I checked, roughly double the number of practitioners than the next-largest (that is - again, last I checked - about 2 billion Christians compared to about 1 billion Muslims. Judaism...is not a major world religion, except insofar as it inspired two religion that are. There's only about 13.5 million of them).

So... you think a turn of the century USian or European would really recognize anything but the landmarks of their current countries?

Yes, I think a turn of the century American, though bewildered by the technological change of New York City, would find its culture almost instantly recognizable. Comparatively, I don't think that a turn of the century Chinese person would recognize the culture of Beijing, and consider it to have been thoroughly Westernized.

(Also, please don't use USian, as the country itself is, in fact, called America, and just happens to share that name with the landmass - much like Australia. If you insist on doing so, however, then I similarly insist that you refer to people from Mexico as USians as well, since the proper name for Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos - the United Mexican States. Also the Australians and Commonwealthians)

RPGuru1331

2013-01-22, 04:08 PM

True and false. They did tend to maintain garrisons of their own troops as well as relying on locals; and of course places like Canada and Australia and the Americas, especially North America, were thoroughly colonized with Westerners.
Do you know what the word 'principally' means?

I'm not holding Western culture up as ideal, simply dominant and, therefore, most important.
And ignoring 7700 years of global history to do so.

I think that every day of history is a practice run to this very moment in time. The past is important, but the past has also already happened and can't be changed. The future is important, but we won't get there if we don't start building it now. The present time is the most important time in history.
So you're basically ignoring everything we know about cause and effect to try to maximize the amount of importance placed on your culture. Duly noted.

Yes. That's why Western society is dominant and, therefore, most important.
"They are historically more important" != "They are currently more important".

And it is the largest with, last time I checked, roughly double the number of practitioners than the next-largest (that is - again, last I checked - about 2 billion Christians compared to about 1 billion Muslims. Judaism...is not a major world religion, except insofar as it inspired two religion that are. There's only about 13.5 million of them).
Is everything a contest to you? Do you not understand that the problem is that you are acting like everything else is irrelevant?

Yes, I think a turn of the century American, though bewildered by the technological change of New York City, would find its culture almost instantly recognizable.
You have picked one of the two major US Cities this is the most untrue for.

(Also, please don't use USian, as the country itself is, in fact, called America, and just happens to share that name with the landmass - much like Australia. If you insist on doing so, however, then I similarly insist that you refer to people from Mexico as USians as well, since the proper name for Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos - the United Mexican States. Also the Australians and Commonwealthians)

Well, you can insist all you want, but I'm not doing it - especially since I haven't referred to the state of Mexico, or even the people who live there, once. It helps that Mexicans don't consider themselves synonymous with a continent, and don't typically egotistically insist that they are history's golden children though.

I'll consider the proper nahuatl name for the Aztecs, though, I suppose.

Terraoblivion

2013-01-22, 04:13 PM

Actually, yes, I do mean apart from him. Among other things, his empire did not long survive his death, and besides, for any given set, there will always be outliers.

Oh, it lasted at the very least through the lifetimes of his sons, given that it wasn't Genghis, but Ögedai who invaded Europe and the Middle East. Also, you were talking about motivation for conquering, not about long-term stability.

Yes, that treasure fleet which was never popular in China and was scrapped pretty quickly so that China could settle into isolation and stagnation. Also note that they were a treasure fleet, not a conquest fleet. They weren't trying to impose Chinese culture anywhere.

It was quite expensive and not really productive, so shutting it off made sense. Also, I wouldn't really call China in the period where they conquered Tibet, Qinghai, Xinjiang, Gansu and Mongolia stagnant or isolationist. Look at a map, you'll discover that roughly half of modern China is in these areas, along with the fairly large country of Mongolia. Also, it was during this period sailors and merchants from Fujian started colonizing Taiwan, the Philipines, Vietnam, Malaysia and parts of Indonesia, such as the city state of Singapore where they came to dominate. Not really a mark of an insular people, I'd think. I'd also like pointing out that this supposedly insular people, managed to turn the entire world trade into being about feeding their need for silver for almost two centuries.

And as a final note, I'd like you to give an example of Europeans trying to impose European culture anywhere. It was mostly about financial gain, preventing other European powers from getting there first or simply bragging rights. Well, unless you can point me to the secret westernization plans the English had for India or something similar.

Yup, impetus ran out and they collapsed on themselves into...

Like I said before, you were talking about motivation, not longevity and managing and guarding an empire is known to be somewhat harder than conquering it.

Before losing most of it. The Ottoman Empire spent the last century of its life as a pawn of the much more powerful, world-spanning empires of Russia and Britain, before making a desperate bid for relevancy in World War I that drastically backfired.

At least the Ottoman Empire actually lasted centuries. The British Empire, if you want to include an actually subjugated India and an explored Australia, lasted from the late 18th century to the mid-20, so around 150 years. Quite a short time compared to the Ottomans, since you seem so obsessed with longevity. The other colonial empires lasted a lot shorter, stretching from the late-19th to the mid-20th century. All the earlier colonies were either depopulated wildernesses, frequently forcefully so, which was the resettled or smaller, trade-oriented affairs. The longest lived was the Spanish one, which lasted from the late 16th century to the early 20th century, which is still substantially shorter than the Ottomans. And you seem to care about longevity after all.

But never actually expanded outside of their local habitat. Basically, they stopped as soon as the terrain starting looking different from their hometown. Europe didn't.

Actually, no, they had just won a major war of conquest mere days before Pizarro's expedition showed up. They stopped once some crazy outsiders started killing them and stirred up various rebellions.

Did you ever wonder how? Remember that Europe was ass-backwards compared to most of the rest of North Africa and Eurasia for most of its history, and it's not like they had numbers of their side, either. China's population has always been stupidly huge. But it was not China suppressing Britain that lead to the Opium Wars.

Because as we all know Britain was not a major, industrial power with a professional military of relatively well-paid soldiers and career officers, bringing the most refined naval technology to bear on an enemy stuck in serious internal turmoil. Oh, wait, that's exactly how it was.

Yes, Europe was technologically less advanced than China in the middle ages and renaissance, but that was centuries before the Opium War. Europe had come to dominate naval technology and the integration of cannons on ships in the 17th century and during the 18th it achieved parity with the most advanced parts of India, China and Japan. By 1839 Europe, with England leading the pack, were well into industrializing. On top of that, China was reeling from a rebellion large enough to rank in the top twenty most lethal wars ever on wikipedia, had a dynastic crisis and severe social issues that would lead to the Taiping Rebellion just a few years later. It also suffered from a fatal lack of interest in and intelligence on the Europeans, so the empire didn't mobilize to face the threat to anywhere near the degree they would have to an invasion from the north or a major rebellion.

It's a fact of history that most people don't really want to acknowledge because of the racist overtones, but the simple fact of the matter is that from about 1492 onwards (actually, probably earlier - when did the Portuguese start setting up trade colonies in Africa and the far east?), "World History" and "European History" become synonymous terms.

Only because that's how we're used to it being told. China and India each had larger populations than Europe in 1492 and were wholly consumed with local affairs and really didn't care what some pale barbarians on tiny boats were doing. Europe did start to ascend in power and importance at this point, but the continent didn't come to dominate international politics and economics until the 19th century. And even then, you'll have quite a hard time understanding the Pacific War or the Cold War if you pretend that Asia was just a passive recipient of European impulses.

Yes, but if you brought a Chinese person from 100 years ago and showed him China today, he'd consider it to be basically indistinguishable from a Western society except that he can read the street signs.

If we posit that this fellow was well-educated and knew what western societies looked like, he'd still be more struck by things like cars, tvs, radios and bright, glossy posters, just to name a few things that would stand out. So would the lack of beggars and shantytowns. Really, what would strike him wasn't that it was western, but that he was in the future, just as much as what would strike you if you entered Snowcrash, the first thing that would strike you was that you were in the freaking future, regardless of whether you were in Tokyo, Paris or Sao Paulo. He'd probably think a lot of typical Chinese features were gone, but a Danish person who experienced the same would think a lot of typical Danish features were gone, such as the villages and pre-industrial agriculture. However, what he would not be able to do was read the street signs, thanks to the language reform that mainland China underwent in the 50s.

Also, China has a major economy primarily because they do all the manufacturing work for the western world. They utterly depend on Western markets - though, to be fair, Western markets utterly depend on Chinese workers. So it's a give and take. Point being that the China today is much more Western than Chinese.

That is a gross exaggeration. Just a few years ago the value of German exports exceeded the value of Chinese exports, showing just one example of manufacturing in the west. Not just that, a considerable amount of the cheap, foreign products we buy are made in Vietnam, Bangladesh and India. Further, China has made aggressive attempts at marketing their products in the third world, just like they have large markets in their immediate neighbors.

In addition to this, most of Chinese economic activity is aimed at China itself, with infrastructure and construction being the largest sectors, the latter being trapped in a major speculation boom that involves the manufacture of entire cities that there is no need or demand for. Further, the Chinese middle class numbers over 400 million people by this point and these are quite insatiable for consumer goods such as cars, fashion and fast food, most of which is still of domestic make.

As for China being more western than Chinese, that's actually a really interesting topic. For one thing it posits that modernity and advanced technology as such are western. For another it posits a transhistoric, essentialist culture that permeates a group of people and represents the true way of being them. It's quite a fascinating exercise in Herderian thought, but it doesn't exactly reflect the concept of culture or national identity found in fields such as anthropology, history or philosophy. At least not in those fields more modern than the second world war.

Put another way, which do you think more people wear: a sedge hat, or a baseball cap?

I have no idea, the former is still quite popular in southeast Asia and the rural areas of southern China which, as I might remind you, are home to more than twice as many people as the US. However, I don't see why it's relevant, what kind of hat you wear is a fairly superficial cultural expression, what's more interesting is why you wear and what you think about the hat.

Today, sure, but I'm talking about the world stage throughout history. Namely: China's only been on it since the 60's, as the Zeng He treasure fleets were, again, a one-time occurance that were never popular in China and quickly scrapped. Europe, by comparison, has been consistently on the world stage in one form or another for about 500 years.

Zheng He went out several times and was followed by an exodus of people from southern China and especially the Fujian province that lasted for several centuries and changed the demographic landscape of Southeast Asia far more than the Europeans ever did. Also, like I mentioned above, China drained the world of silver, shaping the entire world trade around that axis. That's pretty important and consistent.

In terms of pure politics, China was very much on the world stage in the 1930s and 40s, for one thing it was the country where the majority of the Japanese troops serving in the second world war served their entire term of service. For another the Chinese Communists and the Chinese civil war was one of the most significant spectres in the minds of anti-Communist westerners and a partner who could not be dominated outright for the Russians. Then I'd like to point out the Chinese invasion of Korea in response to the American invasion and the Chinese support for the Viet Min and later the FNL in Vietnam.

Going earlier than that, China was as major a player as Russia and England in Central Asia in the first half of the 19th century and by far the dominant force in that region before, as well as the uncontested leader of East Asia until the first Opium War. And it's worth pointing out that at that time, the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire were largely intact and the Mughals had only just fallen and England were still struggling with the kingdom of Mysore in southern India, just like most of North America and Africa didn't have any direct contact with Europe.

Really, the only time where China was clearly subordinate to the west was 1842-1927, which pretty much coincides with the absolute zenith of western dominance. The reason it looks different to you is that you forget about all the areas that weren't dominated by the west, except for China.

But they're not the ones who spread them across the world. Put another way, which do you suppose is more important: Greece, or Rome? Greece came up with all sorts of advances in terms of philosophy and science and so on, and sort of spread them around its general area. Rome came up with practically nothing on its own, but spread everything that Greece had come up with across the Mediterranean, Europe, and North Africa, and further gave a basically stable climate for it to exist and simmer in for about 1,000 years.

The Romans. Not only did they do substantial innovations of their own, such as glassmaking, concrete, public libraries and the foundational theology of modern Christianity and the basics European law and bureaucracy, a lot of the Greek "innovations" have been documented as having been in use in Egypt and Mesopotamia a millennium earlier, including pretty much the entire set of classic geometry. Still, if they truly had invented these things, the Romans still clearly outmatched them in every practical science, just like their development of painting, drama and poetry was quite great, especially compared to the strictly formalistic Greek works.

Having invented something, the inventor ceases to be important, and the messenger is the one who truly changes the world.

The point is that the region was freaking dynamic and a lot of important stuff happened there. For that matter, it sure seems like the news would like us to believe that the inhabitants of the Middle East are having active, outgoing attempts at influencing the world to this day. And again, even accepting that the Middle East has declined in importance, it was still a major factor for all of western Eurasia, northern and eastern Africa for most of recorded history, that seems like quite a bit more than just fighting over some unimportant deserts.

Not nearly as hard as it sounds when you've been at it for 10,000+ years.

Well, actually, it took them 95 years. Go check wikipedia before making comments that far off the mark.

And we hear about India and China much more. In that particular contest, Brazil has settled into a very firm bronze.

And how does American news coverage matter to actual questions of global significance? Also, the growth of the NICs is still very much an ongoing process, so we really can't say what turns out most important in five or ten years. What we can say is that Brazil is a dynamic, expansive economy with a political culture that aims at translating that to geopolitical significance and have done so with some success.

Also, I acknowledge that South America is important to South Americans. Of course it is. I'm talking about the world stage, however, the Terran zeitgeist and public consciousness.

There is no such thing. The world stage looks markedly different depending on where you look at it from. For example, I doubt that people in, Afghanistan thinks all that much about the constitutional disagreements in Europe or the Greek debt and, really, why should they? It isn't relevant for them. Ultimately, what you're actually saying here is that it doesn't matter to the average American, not some abstract zeitgeist. Also, I find it interesting that you once again turn to German enlightenment philosophers, in this case Hegel.

Again, I'm talking more about world consciousness than any actual impact that they're making.

No such thing exists. Whose consciousness and awareness is most right? Is the perception of relevance of 300 million Americans more important than that of 400 million middle class Chinese or 450 million citizens of EU countries? Because I can assure you, perceptions of importance vary wildly between and within these groups.

Morph Bark

2013-01-22, 04:41 PM

And ignoring 7700 years of global history to do so.

I think Rogue Shadows is only talking about those countries that acted on a global scale, not on a continental scale. The global scale only started to become a trend more recently than what you appear to be talking about.

Either way, that's not the topic of the thread, so if you wish to further discuss the matter, could you kindly take it to its own seperate thread?

Terraoblivion

2013-01-22, 04:44 PM

Hey, bad stuff is western too. The Holocaust, chattel slavery, etc.

I'm not holding Western culture up as ideal, simply dominant and, therefore, most important.

You are, however, claiming that all the trapping of modernity are specifically western. Are cars or public schools as specific technologies western? Or were they merely invented by the west and adopted by others because they work?

I think that every day of history is a practice run to this very moment in time. The past is important, but the past has also already happened and can't be changed. The future is important, but we won't get there if we don't start building it now. The present time is the most important time in history.

History is not teleological and it has no purpose. All that happened in the past did so for a multitude of reasons that made sense in the past. Aristotle didn't write his philosophical works so that they might be discussed in western universities today, he wrote them so that other Greeks might read them and be convinced of his views. Columbus didn't miscalculate the size of the planet and sail west so there could be a US with the impact that has had on the planet, he did it because he sucked at math and wanted to be rich. Nobody, ever, did what they did for the sake of a society that would exist ages after they died and which they knew nothing about.

Yes, I think a turn of the century American, though bewildered by the technological change of New York City, would find its culture almost instantly recognizable. Comparatively, I don't think that a turn of the century Chinese person would recognize the culture of Beijing, and consider it to have been thoroughly Westernized.

So said hypothetical American wouldn't be bewildered by the lack of people speaking Italian, Polish and Yiddisch or confused by all the Asians, Arabs and Indians in the streets? What about men who were clearly in a romantic relationship with other men? Or what about the highly different vernacular? Nor the lack of tenement housing and sweatshops right by the Hudson?

Really, what specific aspects is it that you think will be instantly familiar? They speak English, yes, but it appears that your hypothetical time traveler wouldn't feel the same familiarity if he ended up in London or Melbourne. Culture as a specifically national entity that exists in a fixed state is a philosophical and quasi-religious notion first developed by the German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder in the second half of the 18th century. It operates with each culture being imbued with their own soul that perpetuates them as a culture regardless of changes in expression. It has some obvious problems, such as pointing out how exactly it manifests if it is to allow for 6th century Saxons being the same culture as modern English people. It also cannot explain how a new culture comes to be, because, really, if there is such a permanent form of culture, how do a group of people become a new one?

The reason we can see that continuity is that we have the ability to see each link of the chain and relate them to what they developed from and what they developed into, each having clear continuities forward and backward, but these aren't necessarily the same. A hypothetical time traveler would lose this sense of continuity and have to look around for the things that are the same and they'd be quite few. He'd be surrounded by technology he didn't know, people who weren't there before and even something as basic as the pavement and the buildings would look completely different.

Sure, the language would be similar enough to communicate, but less so than the language of his contemporaries in England was, except of course if he was an immigrant, in which case his community had vanished. He could go look up the constitution and look at landmarks, but while they would be recognizable they'd still have changes and additions, often ones he wouldn't be able to make sense of since they were meant to address issues that didn't exist in his time. The food would be almost completely different, the clothes would most of the time be made of fabrics that didn't even exist in his time, employment structure, political organization and religious establishments would all be completely different. The political debate would be about issues that were bizarre and alien to him, given the massive legislative changes of the last century and major political events. In short, nothing would be the same as he remembered it, though some would be close enough to fit into the uncanny valley. So tell me, how would he instantly recognize it and feel he belonged?

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 04:44 PM

You are, however, claiming that all the trapping of modernity are specifically western. Are cars or public schools as specific technologies western? Or were they merely invented by the west and adopted by others because they work?

Actually what I'm claiming is that the trappings of modern society are specifically Western in origin, and that Western culture has spread far further into others, than other cultures have spread into the West; and furthermore that the Western zeitgeits has a far greater world impact than, say, the African one does. Again, sedge hats to baseball caps. Jeans to saris. Coca-cola to...whatever equivalent it is that they have in China, or even Russia.

Well, you can insist all you want, but I'm not doing it - especially since I haven't referred to the state of Mexico, or even the people who live there, once. It helps that Mexicans don't consider themselves synonymous with a continent, and don't typically egotistically insist that they are history's golden children though.

Oh ho, now who's bigoted? We Americans do not consider ourselves synonymous with North America, only the part of North America that our country occupies because, well, it's the part that our country occupies: Canadians aren't wrong to call Canada "Canada," so it's similarly not wrong to call America "America."

Mexico and Canada and all the islands of the Caribbean and Greenland are acknowledged as separate entities that are part of the larger North American continent. We just consider ourselves the dominant force on the continent because, well, we are; that's what happens when you have a larger military, economy, and population than your neighbors. China isn't wrong when it states that it's the dominant force in East Asia.

I don't think we regard ourselves as history's golden children, either. First off, there's that whole slavery thing that we're quite adamant about us having screwed up on it. Vietnam is universally regarded as a mistake. Iraq too; Afghanistan less so, but to be fair we have a perfectly legitimate casus belli there. I could go on, the point is that Americans, in my experience, do not consider ourselves to be as high-and-mighty as the rest of the world thinks we do.

We do think we're the most powerful and important nation on the planet, but to be fair, all the numbers certainly suggest that - a fifth of the world's wealth, the largest navy (larger than the next fifteen combined), and so on. Our political sway is immense, and I don't mean threatening countries, I simply mean that our everyday political decisions carry consequences that reach across the globe.

For comparison - no Google searching allowed - name five Costa Rican Presidents. Name five Italian Prime Ministers. Name five British Prime Ministers.

Now, name five US Presidents. I'll bet that if you could get any of the above at all, you had to dig into history to do so - Churchill, and so on. But I'll bet as well that you could name the last five US Presidents easily.

Editor's note: the following is supposed to reference a certain country in Africa, who's name in English unfortunately bears a strong resemblance to the N-word. You know, the one that rhymes with "bigger." Point being that apparently the board's censor does not like it even though I'm referring to a country and not, in fact, using a racist term. I'm going to try and get around it here; hopefully the moderators will understand. Just replace the M with an N.
When Miger states that it has the highest birth rate in the world, it's not bragging, it's stating a fact. When China says that America's economy would collapse without it, they're not making a threat, they're stating a fact. And when Americans state that we have the most powerful and are the globally most important nation on the planet, we're not bragging, we're stating a fact. When we state we have the most pervasive culture on the planet, we're stating fact. When was the last time a Chinese or Indian movie became a worldwide hit? Is there a single soft drink that meaningfully competes with Coca-cola on the worldwide market? Their closest competitor is Pepsi - another American soft drink.

Besides, when you're one of three superpowers following WWII, and then one of those superpowers drops out almost immediately, and then the other superpower drops out forty-ish years later, leaving you to be the dominant economic, military, and cultural power on the planet...yeah, it can go to your head a little bit, I'll admit. But that doesn't mean it's not true.

Now, no doubt, you're going to bring up that whole "everything is a contest" thing again, but really, when you make an accusation about America, what kind of response do you expect?

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 05:02 PM

Anyway. To get back on topic: I can't really think of a single thing specifically unique to South America in terms of genre or theme. Mostly I end up just end up with "hacking through the rainforest looking for the lost city/rare plant/other MacGuffin, while fighting off tribes/rival adventurers/both," which can be ported to just about anywhere. Hell, New England is rainforest. Good chunks of Oregon, Washington, and northern California, too; point being that you don't even need a tropical setting.

Oh, and I think of Brazil, but then again without knowing the title of the movie you'd be entirely forgiven for not realizing that Brazil does, in fact, take place in Brazil. Also I think about Romancing the Stone and The Incredible Hulk's opening. And something about not crying for Argentina...and the Falkland Islands War, which I guess counts.

Otherwise, South America just...doesn't exist, in my mind. I know more about Africa, or the Middle East, or Bangladesh, then I do about South America, let alone any individual country in South America

ArcturusV

2013-01-22, 05:24 PM

I'm pretty sure the Olympic Peninsula holds the title of "Only Temperate Zone Rain Forest in the world". Though some Appalachian Mountain forests are so thick they might as well be jungle. But yeah, South America has this odd state of being massively important, and entirely forgettable to most people. Not sure why that is. But it is one of the few territories I really identify with the theme of settling a harsh land and a very lopsided culture/technology clash, where you effectively have a culture you are fighting who is about 5-6 technological revolutions behind you, separated with almost no hope of relief from home (Least in a timely manner), in a place with harsher weather than you're used to, unknown dangers, and untamed land.

RPGuru1331

2013-01-22, 05:46 PM

Oh ho, now who's bigoted?
It's still you. That was an easy question... Some of us can actually notice the ridiculous narratives of dominance you're using, and how they're not unique to you.

. We just consider ourselves the dominant force on the continent
I'd believe you if you hadn't shuttled off 'central Americans' into their own area, and hadn't mostly ignored Canada, or Greenland (which I'm not sure counts as part of North America) or the Carribean (Which, incidentally, was choice land for a few hundred years and is still full of tourist locations now), and I'd especially believe it if US citizens in general did that - but they don't.

Now, name five US Presidents. I'll bet that if you could get any of the above at all, you had to dig into history to do so - Churchill, and so on. But I'll bet as well that you could name the last five US Presidents easily.
So you think Millard Fillmore or Grover Cleveland are more important than Zheng He, and yet you get steamed about the idea that US Citizens are arrogant. Most people would struggle to name 5 US Presidents if they were banned from Washington, the Roosevelts, and the Bushes.

And when Americans state that we have the most powerful and are the globally most important nation on the planet, we're not bragging, we're stating a fact.
You didn't just say you're currently ascendant - you insisted that 'western culture' is objectively the most important forever, because it's been on the up for 300 years (and never you mind that we have other folks who are clearly on the rise now). You didn't state a fact, you're making up rationalizations for ideas that make you feel good about yourself.

Is there a single soft drink that meaningfully competes with Coca-cola on the worldwide market?
Puerto Ricans and Germans dominate the malt-based non-alcoholic beer market, therefore Puerto Rico and Germany are the most important.

Why do I care that the USA dominates the fizzy drink market again? How much more arbitrary a measure of dominance can you get?

Besides, when you're one of three superpowers following WWII, and then one of those superpowers drops out almost immediately, and then the other superpower drops out forty-ish years later, leaving you to be the dominant economic, military, and cultural power on the planet...yeah, it can go to your head a little bit, I'll admit. But that doesn't mean it's not true.
I'mma laugh in 10 years.

I don't think we regard ourselves as history's golden children, either
That's an interesting thing to say while you're in the process of doing it.

First off, there's that whole slavery thing that we're quite adamant about us having screwed up on it.
Oh, if only.

Now, no doubt, you're going to bring up that whole "everything is a contest" thing again, but really, when you make an accusation about America, what kind of response do you expect?
Accusation? What happened to facts? It's called "American Exceptionalism". If it makes you feel any better, it's no different than what the British did at the height of their empire and during its decline or indeed, what the Chinese were doing during the period you claim they were stagnant.

Regarding the topic, I'd point out that with South America, you can get pretty far on themes of sacrifice. You don't even have to sacrifice, you know, people or enemies (some of which was voluntary - obviously not the 'sacrifice of enemies' part). The universe didn't run entirely on good things - the gods needed something from humans to actually do their work. Not wanted - needed. It wasn't about sucking up, it was about giving them the tools they needed. Why? Hell if I remember, to be honest, but you could use that as a basis.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 05:48 PM

I'm pretty sure the Olympic Peninsula holds the title of "Only Temperate Zone Rain Forest in the world".

Well, okay, I should qualify that New England used to be a temperate rainforest, and that exactly what qualifies a place as a temperate rainforest is up for debate.

Temperate rainforests actually seem to have a pretty decent spread:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Temperate_rainforest_map.svg/500px-Temperate_rainforest_map.svg.png

For example, having been to Ireland...a lot...painfully too much, in fact...actually it's not really Ireland so much as Aer Lingus that I hate...anyway, I wouldn't qualify all of Ireland as a temperate rain forest. There's just...not a lot of forest there anymore. Granted, most of my experience with Ireland is restricted to the east and southern ends, so I could be wrong about the whole island, but still.

...

...bizarrely there are waaaay too many palm trees for such a comparatively cold island, at least next to the kind of climate you expect to find palm trees in.

Vitruviansquid

2013-01-22, 08:39 PM

Of course you'd see that European fantasy is more important, visible, and dominant. Giants in the Playground is an English-language forum about tabletop roleplaying games, an activity most popular in Europe and North America so it seems obvious to me that its members, including you and me, are most familiar with European genres, themes, and myths. That doesn't mean other folks don't have fantasy or don't have culture, or that European fantasy/culture is actually more important and dominant. It just means we're largely ignorant of what other cultures have or what the other cultures aren't easy for us to translate. And that's okay, because, hey, they're mostly just as ignorant of us.

Now, as to actual question, my formula for coming up with a fantasy counterpart culture is...

(Elements of History + Elements of mythology) * Tone of your choosing * Powerlevel = Fantasy

When I think of China, I think of things like...

- The bureaucracy (earthly imperial or Celestial) is the highest position to which you can aspire. (Contrast with how prevalent feudalism or the city-state is in western fantasy)
- Battles being decided by brilliant strategists and generals, rather than individual valor (contrast with The Iliad, in which the war hinged upon the participation of Achilles individually, or the many Arthurian stories that place tremendous importance on an individual's strength.)
- Confucian ethics, ancestor worship, Tao philosophy, and Buddhist philosophy (contrast with knightly Chivalry as a code of behavior)
- Paper, gunpowder, and silk
- Journey to the West, Three Kingdoms, and even though it's made by Bioware, Jade Empire.

So take a bit of Chinese history first... I'm personally inspired by the Spring and Autumn period, when many petty rulers were contending with each other to rule China and many prominent philosophers (including Confucius and Laozi) arose who promised to bring peace and power to whichever ruler would listen to them.

Now let's add elements of mythology to that. Do I want my setting to have magic? Yes. We'll pull ideas for who wields the magic and where the magic comes from out of mythology - the legendary status of many Chinese philosophers at the time makes it easy to think of them as wizards, and playing Dynasty Warriors inspires me to make the petty rulers also users of battle magic. Meanwhile, feng shui, the five Chinese elements, and the Chinese Zodiac will give my magic a source and a uniquely Chinese flavor. To get an idea of what life is like for the people of this setting, I turn to the tone and pilfer more from Chinese history. If I want it more grimdark, I'll emphasize headhunting among soldiers, make the petty rulers into scheming tyrants, and make my court philosophers more liable to be scheming and crazy (mad scientists of the social sciences, in short) than benevolent. If I want a lighter, more heroic tone, I'll go the other way. Easy as pie.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 11:14 PM

It's called "American Exceptionalism".

I'm familiar with the term. You, however, do not seem to be. American Exceptionalism is the idea that America is different from other countries in that we have a specific mission to spread democracy and liberty. I at no point suggested such. In point of fact I made it a point to avoid bringing up any particulars of government, except inasmuch as the US Presidential election is watched by the whole world and the Costa Rican presidential election is not.

Interestingly enough it wasn't even an American, but rather a Frenchman, who first suggested that America was different; and a Russian, who meant it to mean that America was independent of Marxist theory.

You are using it to basically call Americans *******s and get away with it by claiming that America deserves it. While a common enough practice, that is not the correct usage of American Exceptionalism. That's just going "well, he started it."

Not a once did I say that America was in any way better in any kind of cultural or moral sense, simply more pervasive, which we are. Here is a good example of the pervasiveness of American culture: The top 5 highest-crossing movies in China as of 2012, and their country of origin:

1. Avatar. American.
2. Lost in Thailand. China.
3. Transformers: Dark of the Moon. American.
4. Titanic. American.
5. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. American.

Now, it's not like China doesn't have a film industry of its own. Quite the contrary, it has a very large, active, and healthy one. Yet of the five most popular movies of all time in China, four of them are from Hollywood. If you want to peruse the top 33 of all time, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_China) you'll find "US" appears 17 times - about half. United Kingdom appears once, and it's in conjunction with the US anyway. China fills the remaining slots, with the "Hong Kong" qualifier appearing a few times. You know what you don't see? India. Brazil. Russia. Canada. Mexico. Germany. Japan. Korea.

Like I said, I'm not stating that American culture is exceptional inasmuch as it is better or worse, because in general I don't think it is either of those things in general (I hope even you will admit, though, that we do have a leg-up on certain cultures such as, say, the Aztecs, or North Korea). But we are certainly more pervasive.

You drink our coke, you wear our jeans, you listen to our music and watch our movies. You follow our cultural trends and you continue to learn the language of the British Empire not to interact with the British, but rather to interact with the United States. Are we better? Who knows? Who cares? It's literally impossible to imagine a world without American culture.

That is the exceptional quality of American culture - not that it is better, or that it is worse, but that it IS.

I'd believe you if you hadn't shuttled off 'central Americans' into their own area, and hadn't mostly ignored Canada, or Greenland (which I'm not sure counts as part of North America) or the Carribean (Which, incidentally, was choice land for a few hundred years and is still full of tourist locations now), and I'd especially believe it if US citizens in general did that - but they don't.

Actually, that was just a mistake on my part. I forgot about the places south of south of the border. I'll bet that you completely forgot that Trinidad and Tobago existed until I mentioned them. It was an honest mistake; it happens. Although, to be fair, some people prefer to group the Americas into North, Central, and South, as three distinct "cultural" landmasses, if not geographical ones; while others want to regard the whole thing as a single continent. Me, my general cut-off line is the Panama Canal, mostly because if I regard North and South America as one continent, I'll have to regard Africa and Eurasia as one continent, and that's just too damn big. Asia is hard enough already to keep in Risk.

Oh, and two more points; one, the value of the various Caribbean islands has nothing to do with the pervasiveness of their culture, which is negligiable beyond their region; and two, I find it funny that you're willing to generalize Americans but don't like it when Americans generalize you.

One final point, yes, Greenland is considered a part of North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America), usually, though what constitutes what is kind of morphic in general. For example, I think of Europe as a distinct continent from Asia, but then I also think of India as being likewise, and I group Egypt in with the Middle East despite it geographically being located in Africa.

In any event, Wikipedia agrees that Greenland is part of North America insofar as geography is concerned, and my Risk board agrees, so...

Ashtagon

2013-01-23, 01:42 AM

I know, and I do feel sort of bad about it. But while I know bits and pieces about native mythologies from South America, I know almost nothing about sub-saharan African mythology, and I don't think I've ever seen any fantasy set in those parts.

So yes, white-washed, but it's the only thing I know.

http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/shop/doku.php/nyambe_african_adventures

Just saying.

Also, back in the 2e days, Dragon magazine did an entire issue devoted to Africa.

MrLemon

2013-01-23, 04:24 AM

I think despite lengthy opinions and arguments derailing the thread continually, I'll throw 2 cents on my own into this thread (I would be obliged, if you could take this outside)

Then again, I don't seem to have 2 cents right now. It really is baffling.
I've tried to think of a South/Central American campaign. It would be massively nature-oriented, with a lot of running around in rainforests and huge mountains (never forget those!)
Then, after the campaign has taken off, there would probably be a pseudo-european invasion, even though I would hate that, but I couldn't think of anything more.
The setting is just massively unfamiliar to me.
Sure, pulp adventure works perfectly there, but then it's Europeans/Americans again, just messing with the natives.

Right now I'm thinking dinosaur-enhanced Maya/Inca/Aztecs! THAT is an awesome idea actually (I'm sure it's been done though), but it's partly beside the point, right?

Africa, excluding the Arabian north is kind of the same, minus pyramid temples.
I don't know about their culture, just as I don't know about the South-American ones. The campaign would be immensely similar. I mean, apart from culture (which again: I just don't know) the landscapes as far as I can think is similar, maybe more savannah, less mountains.

Australia. Oh god, here I can't even work with landscapes or tropes!

TL;DR we don't see it because it is hugely unfamiliar to most players (in the west), which makes it hard to "feel" the setting.

Poison_Fish

2013-01-23, 05:47 AM

I'm familiar with the term. You, however, do not seem to be. American Exceptionalism is the idea that America is different from other countries in that we have a specific mission to spread democracy and liberty. I at no point suggested such. In point of fact I made it a point to avoid bringing up any particulars of government, except inasmuch as the US Presidential election is watched by the whole world and the Costa Rican presidential election is not.

Interestingly enough it wasn't even an American, but rather a Frenchman, who first suggested that America was different; and a Russian, who meant it to mean that America was independent of Marxist theory.

I see you read the wikipedia article. Though if you read it in a bit more depth, you'd realize that it wasn't actually a "Russian" who said that. Jay Lovestone was not Russian. You even copy pasted part of the first definition wiki gives without exploring the depth of American Exceptionalism as an ideology.

America has considered itself a golden child throughout it's history. American Exceptionalism is deeply rooted in manifest destiny and a puritan/protestant work ethic as it's origins.

You are using it to basically call Americans *******s and get away with it by claiming that America deserves it. While a common enough practice, that is not the correct usage of American Exceptionalism. That's just going "well, he started it."

Did you miss the part about how previous major powers have an exceptionalism ideology? RPGuru mentioned Britain as an example during it's reign of imperialism. They also mentioned China. Nationalism has been a strong motivating force which leads to this sort of ideology, so there are plenty of examples of it in it's general form throughout recent history, America included.

Hollywood and Visual Media

Do you know what the Marshall plan was? Did you know Hollywood wasn't really international before then? How about how visual media across the world has started becoming less and less US centric over the past few decades as nations still slowly transition away from former imperialistic control of the previous few centuries?

Like I said, I'm not stating that American culture is exceptional inasmuch as it is better or worse, because in general I don't think it is either of those things in general (I hope even you will admit, though, that we do have a leg-up on certain cultures such as, say, the Aztecs, or North Korea). But we are certainly more pervasive.

Why are you comparing the Aztec, a collection of people who have long since been destroyed, to now? Why does a "leg up" even enter into here for something that doesn't exist in modern times? You are also making a superior culture claim here despite denying doing it. Be more careful with your words.

You drink our coke, you wear our jeans, you listen to our music and watch our movies. You follow our cultural trends and you continue to learn the language of the British Empire not to interact with the British, but rather to interact with the United States. Are we better? Who knows? Who cares? It's literally impossible to imagine a world without American culture.

You do realize that this discussion came out of you categorically dismissing South America as unimportant historically? Hell, you should at least understand that it holds extreme relevance to the Spanish empires dominance during the 16th and 17th century's. It was done on the back of much of the silver they brought in (also ended up leading to massive amounts of inflation of Europe, which deeply shaped the economics of the era). And that's still being euro-centric with my history here.

You should also understand that even the most American centric political scientists coming from the Realist school of thought accept we are not in a mono-polar world like you keep trying to imply.

That is the exceptional quality of American culture - not that it is better, or that it is worse, but that it IS.

It's a byproduct of American dominance; as of right now. It is not a specific exceptional quality in the context of history because I could make the same claim of British products or German products during the late 1800's. Please be cautious about using the word "exceptional". It makes it sound like you are, despite your efforts to claim otherwise, making a qualitative historical claim of "betterness". The leg up comment early also really doesn't help because you kept removing context.

Actually, that was just a mistake on my part. I forgot about the places south of south of the border. I'll bet that you completely forgot that Trinidad and Tobago existed until I mentioned them. It was an honest mistake; it happens. Although, to be fair, some people prefer to group the Americas into North, Central, and South, as three distinct "cultural" landmasses, if not geographical ones; while others want to regard the whole thing as a single continent. Me, my general cut-off line is the Panama Canal, mostly because if I regard North and South America as one continent, I'll have to regard Africa and Eurasia as one continent, and that's just too damn big. Asia is hard enough already to keep in Risk.

There is so much wrong with attempting to claim a cultural landmass. Don't go Huntington on us here, that's just going to dig your hole deeper.

Oh, and two more points; one, the value of the various Caribbean islands has nothing to do with the pervasiveness of their culture, which is negligiable beyond their region; and two, I find it funny that you're willing to generalize Americans but don't like it when Americans generalize you.

Value holds significance historically. We had a culture born out of slave trade and easy access to sugar cane and other cash crops. You can see a part of this history reflected even in American Cuisine, not to mention major trade in Europe (and thus, cuisine), despite Europe realizing sugar beets could also be grown locally to sate it's collective appetite for sucrose. In case you are not aware why I am bringing up cuisine is that it can fall under many definitions of "culture".

There is a greater point in that you may not be aware of, in so-far as you have been insistent on "American" culture. You should take note that much of it (From music, to video games, to what have you) is not just based on westernized concepts. Cultures tend to adapt aspects of others, especially in cases of high amounts of contact. That you are so insistent that a brand of soda from a multinational corporation is proof of America being exceptional while failing to consider the context that is within states a fair amount. That you refuse to accept that the "trappings" of modernity are not only vast, but are adopted and vary from group to group, and instead try to turn it around and insist it as further proof of western dominance baffles the mind. Your Narrative doesn't even fit with a Realist mindset, the most bare-bones of views where power only matters.

Also, and it wasn't mentioned awhile ago, but it's been on my mind since I've been lurking. You harp on the Ottoman Empire for falling apart, despite it's hundreds of years of dominance. I question, would you do the same harping on the Roman Empire? It didn't even last as long as the Ottomans. If you did, you'd at least have some internal consistency.

As for being more on subject, I've run a campaign based on Egypt and the Hittites for general inspiration. A lot of room to play around with the mythos lead to some very fun campaigns. There is also the more old styles of fantasy in the form of many different ancient myths that you could use as a base if you want to associate it with a regional location.

Gettles

2013-01-23, 05:50 AM

Morph Bark

2013-01-23, 05:53 AM

- Battles being decided by brilliant strategists and generals, rather than individual valor (contrast with The Iliad, in which the war hinged upon the participation of Achilles individually, or the many Arthurian stories that place tremendous importance on an individual's strength.)

Well, that's still largely individual-dependant, just a different quality. And of course, it requiring the aid of a bunch of soldiers to enact the plan.

If I want it more grimdark, I'll emphasize headhunting among soldiers, make the petty rulers into scheming tyrants, and make my court philosophers more liable to be scheming and crazy (mad scientists of the social sciences, in short) than benevolent. If I want a lighter, more heroic tone, I'll go the other way. Easy as pie.

As in, actually cutting off the heads of enemies? :smalleek: Did that happen in China at any point, or is that just added for grimdark value?

You follow our cultural trends and you continue to learn the language of the British Empire not to interact with the British, but rather to interact with the United States. Are we better? Who knows? Who cares? It's literally impossible to imagine a world without American culture.

Actually (going a little off-topic myself), this is largely untrue, though I guess that would be hard to see for someone who only sees it from the American side. Being European myself, I've seen more people learn English to interact with British people first, American people second -- or, actually, the rest of the world first, British second, American third, as the British spread their language across Africa, South Asia and Australia as well as North-East America. It was just the Americans themselves who spread it across the rest of the continent. English isn't so much the American language now, as it is a kind of "trade" language used between people of different countries who otherwise don't have a language in common, and this came to be over hundreds of years of the British spreading out and making colonies and being all imperial about it. It's because the British Empire used to be dominant rather than America being dominant now that English is so widespread and learned all over the world.

On the subject of American culture: the rest of the world does take up some of that, but only really what appears in pop culture and becomes prolific in media. A lot of the little things that make up American culture (whether it's New York, Texan, Floridian or Californian culture) never pop up outside of the country. (And Hawaiian doesn't even pop up anywhere else in the USA itself.)

It's easy to imagine the world without American culture for me, as someone not from America. It's not, however, easy to imagine a world without the American economic market and it's military power giving it great pull on the world scene.

http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/shop/doku.php/nyambe_african_adventures

Just saying.

Also, back in the 2e days, Dragon magazine did an entire issue devoted to Africa.

I think despite lengthy opinions and arguments derailing the thread continually, I'll throw 2 cents on my own into this thread (I would be obliged, if you could take this outside)

Thank you. :smallsmile:

Then again, I don't seem to have 2 cents right now. It really is baffling.
I've tried to think of a South/Central American campaign. It would be massively nature-oriented, with a lot of running around in rainforests and huge mountains (never forget those!)
Then, after the campaign has taken off, there would probably be a pseudo-european invasion, even though I would hate that, but I couldn't think of anything more.
The setting is just massively unfamiliar to me.
Sure, pulp adventure works perfectly there, but then it's Europeans/Americans again, just messing with the natives.

Right now I'm thinking dinosaur-enhanced Maya/Inca/Aztecs! THAT is an awesome idea actually (I'm sure it's been done though), but it's partly beside the point, right?

Africa, excluding the Arabian north is kind of the same, minus pyramid temples.
I don't know about their culture, just as I don't know about the South-American ones. The campaign would be immensely similar. I mean, apart from culture (which again: I just don't know) the landscapes as far as I can think is similar, maybe more savannah, less mountains.

Australia. Oh god, here I can't even work with landscapes or tropes!

TL;DR we don't see it because it is hugely unfamiliar to most players (in the west), which makes it hard to "feel" the setting.

I suppose you're right. Australia is still relatively easy, but that's because most of the country is the same, aside from the northern bit and the coasts, and the "all things are poisonous" is pretty darn near true.

Mayincatec is indeed often associated with South/Latin America (it may seem odd, but to me, and in nearly all instances I see it, "South America" means everything beyond the Panama Canal geographically, but everything from Mexico onwards culturally and socio-economically). The only thoughts I had had so far included mostly aberrations and things like squibbons.

Anyway, thanks for your input. :smallsmile:

Morph Bark

2013-01-23, 05:57 AM

A small thing that kind of bothers me is that the Maya, the Inca were completely different civilizations that had little to no contact with each other. The Maya had already declined by the nearly 600 years before the founding of either of the other two. The three of them shouldn't be used interchangeably.

In my campaign setting, I actually considered putting all the "pyramid-building cultures" together in one empire, with the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas each having a semi-independant city-state, with similar, but different cultures. I know the Inca are supposed to be quite different from the other two, since they also were founded in a much different area, but the Aztecs and Mayans shared similarities largely due to being in the same geographical location, with the Aztecs simply having picked up traits that had been passed on by the long-dead culture of the Mayans. Kind of similar to how the English possessed cultural traits you could trace back to Celtic tribes centuries earlier.

Poison_Fish

2013-01-23, 06:00 AM

Actually, now that I think about it, The Lizardman from Warhammer Fantasy are aiming for an Aztec vibe.

Vitruviansquid

2013-01-23, 06:36 AM

As in, actually cutting off the heads of enemies? :smalleek: Did that happen in China at any point, or is that just added for grimdark value?

Qin dynasty soldiers were famously fierce and brave because they received rewards and promotions based on the number of enemy heads they could collect in a battle, a policy which motivated every soldier to get into the fight as quickly as possible, before someone else took all the heads.

At the moment, I can't seem to find any credible online sources to explain this headhunting in detail (such as whether it was a constant policy of the Qin military, or only used in one or two famous occasions, or even if such a policy is all legend). The important thing, at least in the view of creating a fantasy setting, is that the myth is out there and it helps add flavor to the setting.

RPGuru1331

2013-01-23, 07:14 AM

If you're going to insist on treating Mexico and the Aztec as South American (Which, btw, thank you for demonstrating my point, incidentally), I'd also emphasize the fragile state of the empire. The conquered people at the height of aztec were the primary agents of Aztec falling, because they were rather angry about the way they were being treated.

For Inca, make sure you include some hella-good engineering. It's really fixating on a minor aspect, I know... but the Inca were pretty damn good engineers. It'd be like a roman empire analogue without public works projects to not have it at some level.

I don't know about their culture, just as I don't know about the South-American ones. The campaign would be immensely similar.
No, it really wouldn't. Africa, even excluding Arabia, has held some major empires as well. One would think the inclusion of the Mali and the Songhay in civ would help people remember them... but the point is that if you actually did things based on some of the cultures that lived there in the 1000s, it'd be a very, very different animal.

I'm familiar with the term. You, however, do not seem to be. American Exceptionalism is the idea that America is different from other countries in that we have a specific mission to spread democracy and liberty.
Well, no, because American Exceptionalism is mostly just how US Citizens keep saying it's a super-unique country (unlike every other country, which is not a special snowflake - one assumes they were still limited by cause and effect). One current mechanism is "Because we spread democracy", but in ages past it was the nature of its markets, or its status as a formerly oppressed colony (which they maintained even after, say, Haiti was independent)

You are using it to basically call Americans *******s
Does this forum censor the word "Egotist"? Which you haven't really done a lot to counter... I mean, the whole origin of this conversation is that you basically complained that people had the poor taste to talk about the historical relevance of South America instead of yourselves.

and get away with it by claiming that America deserves it. While a common enough practice, that is not the correct usage of American Exceptionalism. That's just going "well, he started it."
No, I imagine the ones who 'started it' would be the Harappa, but we can't read what they wrote so it's hard to be sure. Powerful states and tribes tend to insist this sort of thing regardless of the facts. And yes, the USA fully deserves to be called egotists; this nonsense you spew is hardly unique. Your culture has a hard time just being told it isn't particularly exceptional - which you're demonstrating now.

It's literally impossible to imagine a world without American culture.
Man, the hits keep on coming. It's really not that difficult, because there are other powers who would and could gladly step into the void left and fill the world with their own propaganda. Just because you have a very limited imagination doesn't mean the rest of us are trapped with this. What's really interesting would be a world without an imperial power dominating things at all, and that one I have trouble with.

That is the exceptional quality of American culture - not that it is better, or that it is worse, but that it IS.

Then it isn't exceptional, because every culture is or was at some point.

Actually, that was just a mistake on my part. I forgot about the places south of south of the border. I'll bet that you completely forgot that Trinidad and Tobago existed until I mentioned them.
Well, you lose, pay up. I couldn't place some Carribean states on a map, but I remember they exist.

And I know it was a mistake - it's a common one made by US Citizens. Mexico isn't permitted to be North American for some unknown reason about which I can only speculate (Hint: I know exactly what it is). Panama as well, though only by inference - if Mexico is South American, what else would Panama be?

Oh, and two more points; one, the value of the various Caribbean islands has nothing to do with the pervasiveness of their culture, which is negligiable beyond their region; and two, I find it funny that you're willing to generalize Americans but don't like it when Americans generalize you.
Oh? And what am I? Notwithstanding that I've been abundantly clear that egotism on this scale is a trait endemic to powerful states and tribes. You're the one who acts as if it's uniquely a US Trait, not I. Always gotta be special...

And again, you're the one who acted like there was nothing of value, ever, in the Carribean. That this is demonstrably untrue (I'm familiar with at least a few major, non-tourist industries on some of the islands, and I don't generally monitor the carribean) didn't stop you from acting like it. And for being so unpervasive, aren't there major enclaves of Puerto Ricans and Cubans in several major US cities? Aren't Reggae and other forms of music running amok there as well as your own music? There's no question they haven't spread as much, but to pretend they haven't at all...

Yora

2013-01-23, 07:42 AM

As in, actually cutting off the heads of enemies? :smalleek: Did that happen in China at any point, or is that just added for grimdark value?
I think the Japanese were very into it. I believe you got bonus payments from your lord for the amount of enemies you killed, which would be counted by the number of heads you bring back. With bigger rewards for the heads of known enemy leaders. But I guess in practice it would be hard to find the corpses that belong to you after a major battle, and there would also be lots of unclaimed ones that belong to dead allies that you can also pick up.
In some battles, soldiers would cut off the head of their own dead leaders to prevent them from falling into enemy hands as a trophy. And I think in some cases, the heads changed hands multiple times as people try to get them back like standards in Europe.

Ashtagon

2013-01-23, 08:14 AM

I think the Japanese were very into it. I believe you got bonus payments from your lord for the amount of enemies you killed, which would be counted by the number of heads you bring back. With bigger rewards for the heads of known enemy leaders. But I guess in practice it would be hard to find the corpses that belong to you after a major battle, and there would also be lots of unclaimed ones that belong to dead allies that you can also pick up.
In some battles, soldiers would cut off the head of their own dead leaders to prevent them from falling into enemy hands as a trophy. And I think in some cases, the heads changed hands multiple times as people try to get them back like standards in Europe.

Thank you for that mental image :smalleek:

Yora

2013-01-23, 08:21 AM

It's like a rugby game with swords. :smallbiggrin:

Ashtagon

2013-01-23, 08:29 AM

It's like a rugby game with swords. :smallbiggrin:

Blood bowl? (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1140161&rootCatGameStyle=&_requestid=1020595)

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-23, 09:40 AM

And again, you're the one who acted like there was nothing of value, ever, in the Carribean.

No, I said that America was more important than the Caribbean at the present time. Because it is. Because every single island together in the Caribbean does not even account for 1% of the world's GDP. America, meanwhile, accounts for somewhere between 20-25%. Silver is more valuable than copper. This isn't a slight against copper, it's just a statement of fact.

Now, yes, back during the Revolutionary War, Jamaica alone was worth more as a prize than the entire thirteen colonies combined, and the main reason why America won its independence was because France entered the war on our side, and France could threaten Britain's more valuable colonies in the Caribbean, so the British basically stopped fighting us in order to deal with a larger threat. But that's...what, 240 years ago or so? Sorry, but some countries are more important than other countries. If Jamaica disappeared it'd suck for Caribbean tourism and that would be the sum total of the world impact.

If America disappeared, 20-25% of the world's wealth would disappear, along with the single largest source of foreign aid ($23.3 billion in 2012 - nearly double the next-largest giver, the UK, and about a third of all foreign aid in total), a huge chunk of exported food (America is the world's largest exporter of food, our farms feed entire countries, many of which are incapable of feeding themselves due to sheer population density - notably, Japan), a massive number of military bases would disappear (basically about half of all the world's peacekeeping forces), which much of the world likes to think is good but to be completely honest the American military is the only things preventing North Korea from invading South Korea, the various Arab states ganging up on Israel*, Russia from deciding that the Eastern bloc should make a comeback, and so on - to counteract this, other countries would have to increase their military spending, but with their own economies taking a hit from America's disappearance...well, suffice to say it would not be a fun time; China's single largest market would disappear, resulting in a financial crisis and probably bankruptcy in China as well, the same is true for other Asian nations that rely on export markets, such as Taiwan and Vietnam; and various other large-scale effects that I can't be bothered to remember right now.

Even the United Kingdom - even Russia - disappearing, would not have this same effect (China, possibly. We need those factories - but having said that, that's all the world needs China for. It does not supply nearly as much peacekeeping, foreign aid, or food as America. Apart from that, you need to remove entire continents. All of Europe, excluding Russia, disappearing might have the same impact on the world). Now, mind, I'm not saying that civilization would collapse, that it'd be the end of democracy, etc. I'm just stating the immediate, disappearance +5 years or so effects (most notably the starving countries due to a lack of American exported food - that's a lot of slack to pick up). Eventually the world would move on, but it would really, really suck for about five years, and it'd be decades before true recovery happened.

In Alternate History, this kind of event - one which causes worldwide catastrophe and turmoil and suffering - is referred to as a Vlad Tepes.

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/13/139887/2731137-vladtepes.jpg

Point being that when your country can impact the world that much by its presence or absence...you kind of get to claim that you're important and actually be important. No other country has ever had such a large impact on world affairs, save China, and that's because it's in a symbiotic relationship with the US (and vice-versa, we both need each other).

Here, I started a thread about it over on Alternatehistory.com (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=268168). You may have to create an account to actually read the thread, but I think that doing so would be good for you.

And that's just imagining a world where America ceased to exist but everything that has previously come from it still happened. Now try to imagine a world where America is literally erased from history, from 1776 on. The world would not be recognizable. I don't know if it would be better, or worse, (it almost certainly would not be worth a Vlad Tepes) but it would be completely, utterly different. Probably Russia-dominated; a certain Frenchman in the early 1800s, forget his name, totally called that Russia and America would become superpowers far outstripping anything Europe, Asia, or Africa could offer up.

I wish I could remember his name...

Well, no, because American Exceptionalism is mostly just how US Citizens keep saying it's a super-unique country (unlike every other country, which is not a special snowflake - one assumes they were still limited by cause and effect). One current mechanism is "Because we spread democracy", but in ages past it was the nature of its markets, or its status as a formerly oppressed colony (which they maintained even after, say, Haiti was independent)

That is a modern corruption of the term from the past 12 years or so. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#21st_century_opposition)

And I know it was a mistake - it's a common one made by US Citizens. Mexico isn't permitted to be North American for some unknown reason about which I can only speculate (Hint: I know exactly what it is). Panama as well, though only by inference - if Mexico is South American, what else would Panama be?

Like I said, the most commonly held belief in the US is that the Americas are divided into north and south, and that the dividing line is the Panama Canal. That's what all our maps show. Having said that, a not insignificant number of North Americans, including Mexicans, prefer to group the Americas into three blocs based around cultural similarities. There is some sense to this: there is no reason to regard Europe as a distinct continent from Asia, but convention says it is, so why shouldn't the same convention be applied here? In that case, North America consists of America, Canada, and Greenland; Central America consists of everything south of the Rio Grande and north of the Panama Canal, as well as the the Caribbean Islands; and South America is everything south of the Panama Canal. A third group prefers to think of the entire Americas, north and south, as a single entity (by the way, I'm told that this is actually the main thing that is taught in South America, that the Americas are a single continent); while a final group, the smallest, prefers to think of North America as consisting of Canada, America, and Mexico; Central America is everything south of Mexico and north of the Canal; and South America is everything south of the Canal; and Greenland isn't part of North America (heck, you thought that, remember? The Greenland part, that is)

The last three, however, are not the majority view, and none of our maps show the world that way, but rather group it into the seven familiar continents (North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica). Personally, again, I prefer to think of the Indian subcontinent as its own distinct continent as well, but I accept that this is not a majority view.

Besides which, what exactly constitutes a "continent" is hugely up for debate:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Continental_models-Australia.gif/320px-Continental_models-Australia.gif

The only universally agreed-upon continent is Australia (Antarctica is sometimes excluded due to having no permanent population). Greenland is acknowledged as an island rather than a distinct continent, for some reason. It's a convention thing anyway, not an actual geographically easy to define term, but the point is that the majority of Americans buy into the classic seven model (which isn't even an American convention by origin, it's a European one); and the ones that don't mostly buy into the six-continent model that groups Asia and Europe together.

Short version - stop accusing the US for being racist over something that the vast majority of us don't do. If you want to accuse us of racism, pick something that's actually happened, like the "ground zero mosque" debate, or something.

Aren't Reggae and other forms of music running amok there as well as your own music?

No, it was bigger in the 80s and 90s. Reggae isn't particularly popular in the US anymore, and it was always fairly niche even when it was. Actually a large number of the most popular singers and songs in America seem to be from Canada, though they aren't singing Canadian music, they're singing American pop. Pop and hip-hop are the most popular musical styles in America right now.

Though, there have been two major overseas hits in the past year - Gotye's "Somebody That I Used to Know" and PSY's "Gangnam Style." They've mostly lost popularity by now, though, and while I'm not sure about Gotye, "Gangnam Style" is just Korean Pop - a derivative of American Pop.

--------------------------
*For the record, I really do not feel that Israel should have been allowed to come into being as a country...but at present, I do not feel it should be dissolved, either. I feel that the people who founded it basically exploited European guilt over the Holocaust to get a homeland that hadn't been theirs for 2,000 years and which they had less of a claim to than the people who had been currently living there. However, I also acknowledge that this all happened decades ago, and that we currently have entire generations of Israelis that were born and raised in Israel, and that they do have a legitimate claim to the land...but, so do the Palestinians. It is a mess, is my point, but not one that I can see any real viable solution to.

Morph Bark

2013-01-23, 09:54 AM

If you're going to insist on treating Mexico and the Aztec as South American

*shrug* Simple fact is, in many places outside the Americas, most people I've come across used South America as a synonym for Latin America. While it may not be entirely correct, culturally and socio-economically, for as far as I know at least, Mexico and the Central American countries have more in common with the actual South American countries than with Canada.

Also, considering you've been arguing about facts this whole time: that wasn't what the topic is about. It's about what things people associate with the continents in question, which is very different from their factual history and current status.

I think the Japanese were very into it. I believe you got bonus payments from your lord for the amount of enemies you killed, which would be counted by the number of heads you bring back. With bigger rewards for the heads of known enemy leaders. But I guess in practice it would be hard to find the corpses that belong to you after a major battle, and there would also be lots of unclaimed ones that belong to dead allies that you can also pick up.
In some battles, soldiers would cut off the head of their own dead leaders to prevent them from falling into enemy hands as a trophy. And I think in some cases, the heads changed hands multiple times as people try to get them back like standards in Europe.

It's like a rugby game with swords. :smallbiggrin:

Already got a dangerous rugby game for the setting's orcs. :smallamused:

It does all sound very intruiging though, and I think I'll use it. Thanks for that interesting bit of information.

Ethdred

2013-01-23, 10:26 AM

Qin dynasty soldiers were famously fierce and brave because they received rewards and promotions based on the number of enemy heads they could collect in a battle, a policy which motivated every soldier to get into the fight as quickly as possible, before someone else took all the heads.

Personally, it would motivate me to hang back while my comrades did all the killing, and then nip in and steal the heads of people who were killed by my now-dead comrades.

On the wider topic, I think part of the problem (leaving aside a lack of education :smallsmile: ) is that most other cultures have not had a Tolkein. In his Middle Earth writings he was explicitly taking his knowledge of various European mythologies and producing new stories for his time. Which is why creatures like dwarves and trolls (and I'm amused to see 'dwarves' gets picked up as a mis-spelling) appear in so many role-playing games today and, for example, Orishas don't. Since most fantasy literature and role-playing games have been written by people of European heritage, they tend likewise to focus on familiar settings and stories, and this has a self-reinforcing tendency: people who buy fantasy literature like to read about vampires, so people write books about vampires and hordes of pale and interesting teenagers fantasise about being vampires, not penanggalan. The reason that you can more easily think of a Chinese/Japanese campaign than a Vietnamese-influenced one is due to the success of their media (especially, I would say, anime) in spreading mythologies from that part of the world. Hopefully, in a few years we'll have a break-out Nollywood fantasy epic and all the kids will be doing West African-themed campaigns :smallsmile:

One idea for an African campaign could be based in the time when a Shaka-like figure is building up the power of his people: the PCs could either be 'Zulus' helping the expansion, or could be defending their own tribe from the expansionists. You could throw in the idea of a separate, and possibly quite alien, outside force that turns up to upset their plans (equivalent to the Boers or British) - will the locals unite against the outsiders, or be divided and ruled? One interesting aspect of this is that the Zulus and other tribes had quite extensive and sophisticated ceremonies where the 'shamans' would cast spells on the warriors to help them in battles. This ties in nicely with buffing spells, but the spells are cast in communal ceremonies before battle, and involve not just the whole fighting force but the whole community, rather than having a cleric cast a spell in combat on a few fights. And these spells really do make you impervious to your enemies' weapons!

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-23, 11:01 AM

Oops, missed that I have two friends now. I think I touched on all of your points save one:

Also, and it wasn't mentioned awhile ago, but it's been on my mind since I've been lurking. You harp on the Ottoman Empire for falling apart, despite it's hundreds of years of dominance. I question, would you do the same harping on the Roman Empire? It didn't even last as long as the Ottomans. If you did, you'd at least have some internal consistency.

Define "Roman Empire." Because that's not as easy as you think.

Now, for the most part, most of the conquest of the Empire was done under the Republic, not the Empire. The Empire basically just held onto what the Republic gained, with a few small exceptions, and of course an "empire" doesn't actually have to have an Emperor at its head. For example, the British Empire was called such long before Victoria was named Empress of India, and the whole state was still called the British Empire even though Victoria was Empress only of India. And of course there's the post-Bonapartist French Empire, and some people like to refer to America as an empire...

So, if we want to count the Republic...well, we probably don't want to start with the founding of Rome, since it's just one of an innumerable number of city-states in the Italian peninsula and its origins are somewhat mythical anyway. We could start with the foundation of Rome as a republic in 509 BC, but again, it's just one city-state like any other at this point So...let's take our starting date as the end of the Pyrrhic War in 275 BC, as from this point forwards Rome was the unchallenged master of Italia and was seriously competing with Carthage for control of the western Mediterranean.

Now we have to set the end of the Roman Empire. This isn't easy either. Do we use when the Empire was split in twain? the fall of Rome? If you want to get technical the Byzantine Empire never referred to itself as such, it referred to itself as the Roman Empire because it was basically just a continuation of Rome, so that would put the end of Rome in 1453, unless we want to include Trebizond, in which case we're up to 1461. We could actually go even further since the head of the Ottoman Empire considered itself a continuation of the Byzantines, with simply the management changing hands. In that case the Roman Empire lasted until 1923.

Still, let's be fair (I do not personally count the Eastern Empire as a continuation of Rome, even if Gibbon did), and use 476 AD, the date when Odoacer sacked Rome and proclaimed himself King of Italy, which is the date usually accepted as the fall of the Western Empire.

So, from 275 BC to 476 AD is 750 years.

The Ottoman Empire was founded in 1299 by Osman Bey and collapsed in 1923. That is 624 years.

So...first, the Roman state (Republic + Empire) lasted roughly a hundred years longer.

Having said that, second - I do not harp on the Ottoman Empire for falling apart. I point out that they did not have much of an impact beyond their local region, even in a historical sense. The Roman Empire, meanwhile, and the preceding Republic, are both directly responsible for the emergence of Europe, which, as previously established, is the primary source of Western culture, which is the dominant culture of the world today, specifically the American variant.

So basically, what I'm saying is that the Roman Empire is more important to world history than the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire is important in its own right, but the Roman Empire is more important.

Friv

2013-01-23, 11:23 AM

Answering only the OP:

When I think of Mesoamerican or South American fantasy, what I think of is the Bronze Age turned up to 11. Ancient, powerful empires whose cultural achievements have far outstripped their technological ones, seperated by vast, impenetrable distances filled with ruins, isolationist tribes that resist incursion by imperial forces, and deadly monsters. I also tend to think of theocratic societies with little in the way of trade routes between them.

When I think of African fantasy, by contrast, I think of tribal fiction. This is probably terrible of me. Tribes of people in loose confederations, a land where spirits and magic still rule and you have to know what to oppose and what to appease in order to survive. Gods that walk the earth. Societies that are based around the bravery of the individual and the support of the community, and which tend to be quite small and close-knit. Not unlike old Celtic fantasy, actually.

My images of Australian fantasy are informed much more by Western views of Australia than by knowledge of the actual native myths, and they are of a much more hostile and cautious version of African fantasy - magic runs wild, powerful heroes protect their villages from absurdly lethal monsters, and there is a hint that the fabric of reality itself is looser here than in other lands.

ArcturusV

2013-01-23, 11:27 AM

Well, mostly because the Ottomans got stuffed up and prevented from expanding by the Romanians. There was a period where the Ottomans could have taken a much larger chunk of "the known world" before that. They were poised to and really no one thought the Romanians would halt them at the time.

That and wouldn't it be 750 years for the Romans since there was no Year Zero as I recall from history class, several decades ago?

Still, kinda surprised most people have Africa as a "Savage Land" sort of concept. I mean at one point in history, you had the greatest known collection of knowledge and learning in the world in Central Africa. They were in their own rights a cultured, advanced land. Sure there were also the tribes that we consider primitive, but it wasn't the end all, be all.

Also Africa gets associated a lot with "Dragons" in my mind. A lot of their local legends and myths had various winged beasts and serpents. Not to mention as someone referenced the Mirage block in Magic: The Gathering being African Themed it had a lot more Dragons than norm. Both of which kind of cement the "Dragonland" theme in my mind.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-23, 11:36 AM

That and wouldn't it be 750 years for the Romans since there was no Year Zero as I recall from history class, several decades ago?

Valid point, and I shall correct my math forthwith.

While I acknowledge that the Ottoman Empire could have had a larger world impact...it didn't. Much as how the Central Powers could have won the Great War. It's an interesting exercise in alternate history, but the fact is that the world is steadily becoming more Westernized, without a like transition of other cultures into Western values. Is this right? Wrong? I'm not claiming either, just that it's happening.

...oh, also on an unrelated point, while the Central Powers may have been able to win WWI under the right circumstances, there is no circumstance under which the Nazis or the Japanese and certainly not the Italians could have won WWII. Indeed it's questionable if the Nazis could have beaten the UK alone. They were certainly never going to win against Russia or America. But, they make for great villains, so...

Also Africa gets associated a lot with "Dragons" in my mind. A lot of their local legends and myths had various winged beasts and serpents. Not to mention as someone referenced the Mirage block in Magic: The Gathering being African Themed it had a lot more Dragons than norm. Both of which kind of cement the "Dragonland" theme in my mind.

That'd be me. Though Jamuraa also had a substantially larger amount of time travel in it then I think is entirely typical of African folklore.

Yay Teferi!

Friv

2013-01-23, 11:36 AM

Still, kinda surprised most people have Africa as a "Savage Land" sort of concept. I mean at one point in history, you had the greatest known collection of knowledge and learning in the world in Central Africa. They were in their own rights a cultured, advanced land. Sure there were also the tribes that we consider primitive, but it wasn't the end all, be all.

Also Africa gets associated a lot with "Dragons" in my mind. A lot of their local legends and myths had various winged beasts and serpents. Not to mention as someone referenced the Mirage block in Magic: The Gathering being African Themed it had a lot more Dragons than norm. Both of which kind of cement the "Dragonland" theme in my mind.

The problem for me is, I don't actually know very much about what Africa was like for most of its history. What I know are a few of the old myths and folktales, and what I've seen in media has tended to reinforce that because people are terrible and stereotypes are easier to remember than nuanced information.

I recognize, intellectually, that my vision of fantasy Africa is no more correct than if I were using Celtic myths as the basis for my vision of fantasy Europe, but the emotional resonance remains.

I guess what I'm saying is that I clearly need to get on learning about the history of Africa.

RPGuru1331

2013-01-23, 12:05 PM

*shrug* Simple fact is, in many places outside the Americas, most people I've come across used South America as a synonym for Latin America. While it may not be entirely correct, culturally and socio-economically, for as far as I know at least, Mexico and the Central American countries have more in common with the actual South American countries than with Canada.
Does that make Canada European, since it has more in common with Britain than Mexico?

Also, considering you've been arguing about facts this whole time: that wasn't what the topic is about. It's about what things people associate with the continents in question, which is very different from their factual history and current status.
Shouldn't you be saying this tot he USian talking about how there was nothing important in South America then?

Having said that, second - I do not harp on the Ottoman Empire for falling apart. I point out that they did not have much of an impact beyond their local region, even in a historical sense.
Horse hockey. The Ottomans were the 900 pound gorilla for centuries to the Europeans, an apparently invincible empire who controlled trade routes that the European upper classes desperately needed open. They projected power over 3 continents and ruled over more land than the Romans for most of their respective histories. Do you know anything, about anything?

That is a modern corruption of the term from the past 12 years or so.
Okay, two things.
1: Some of us are aware the wikipedia article doesn't say what you're pretending it does now.
2: just because you think we're fooled by boiler plate about how 'exceptional doesn't mean better' doesn't actually make us so easily deceived. That only a minority are honest about what they're saying doesn't change what they're saying.

No, I said that America was more important than the Caribbean at the present time
You didn't just stop there, because you make a consistent effort to devalue anything that isn't 'western civilization'.

So basically, what I'm saying is that the Roman Empire is more important to world history than the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire is important in its own right, but the Roman Empire is more important.

I'm pretty sure that I can figure out this guy's line of argument, and I can safely say you didn't...

In Alternate History, this kind of event - one which causes worldwide catastrophe and turmoil and suffering - is referred to as a Vlad Tepes.

And in real history, which is where facts live, pretending that current power (and not even the level of dominance you imagine - see the comments about a monopolar world view) invalidates the historical significance of everyone not related to you makes you an ignorant, nationalistic fool.

No other country has ever had such a large impact on world affairs, save China, and that's because it's in a symbiotic relationship with the US (and vice-versa, we both need each other).
Why would you invalidate your own point like that? Don't you know that's what other folks are doing for you? Notwithstanding that this is factually in error - did you miss the part about China siphoning the global silver trade? Because that's where the Silver Spain stole from the Potosi mines went.

Also, China is approximately 10% of the world's population - they don't need the US to have massive effects on the global economy, you are just trying to rationalize your own arrogance again.

That's what all our maps show. Having said that, a not insignificant number of North Americans, including Mexicans, prefer to group the Americas into three blocs based around cultural similarities
It's primarily the US and Canada, trust me. The Carribean is usually included in the mythical 'central america', and I promise you it doesn't really have strong similarities with Mexico or Panama.

Short version - stop accusing the US for being racist over something that the vast majority of us don't do. If you want to accuse us of racism, pick something that's actually happened, like the "ground zero mosque" debate, or something.

Uh, your country does this all the time, you, personally, did it just now, and you've collectively been doing it for the better part of decades. You're trying to justify the thing you claim you don't do, and you're going to try to pull this nonsense about how you don't do it? Please.

Reggae isn't particularly popular in the US anymore
You're... not very good at this, are you? I didn't say it was the most popular thing ever - the point is that it's penetrated the USA and makes rounds there. It's joined by less popular, but still extant, Carribean bands that have seen some success in the USA. Again, things that aren't crushing successes exist and matter. At some point, you may grasp this.

I guess what I'm saying is that I clearly need to get on learning about the history of Africa.

History helps. So does fiction from the people themselves - Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe is a pretty commonly held one by libraries that occurs to me off the top of my head.

Ethdred

2013-01-23, 12:19 PM

...oh, also on an unrelated point, while the Central Powers may have been able to win WWI under the right circumstances, there is no circumstance under which the Nazis or the Japanese and certainly not the Italians could have won WWII. Indeed it's questionable if the Nazis could have beaten the UK alone. They were certainly never going to win against Russia or America. But, they make for great villains, so...

Sorry, but that's just so wrong. If Goering hadn't screwed up the Battle of Britain so badly then the Germans could have invaded Britain, and would have won easily. Now there were plans to evacuate the Royal family and government to Canada and continue the fight from there, but it wouldn't have been very easy. Certainly, I can't imagine how the Allies could have invaded France in 1944 without the UK as a base. Also, Germany came very close to winning the Battle of the Atlantic, which would have resulted in the UK starving and almost certainly surrendering. If the UK had fallen (either to invasion or starvation) the British would not have been able to maintain their effort in the Western Desert, leading almost certainly to the Axis taking over all of North Africa and the Middle East - and all that oil! Without any other entanglements to worry about, Hitler would have been able to concentrate fully on the Soviet Union. Remember that Moscow (and the non-retreating Soviet government) nearly fell anyway - with the extra German power (and Rommel coming up through the Caucasus), and without the (albeit limited) of Britain and the US, I can't imagine Russia pulling off its remarkable defence of late 1941-42. Exactly how things would have gone after the fall of the whole of the west of the Soviet Union I don't know enough to say - I've heard some ideas that Hitler never intended to take over the whole landmass, just get the main agricultural land and raw materials and push the Russians back behind the Urals, but then leave them there so future generations of Germans would have someone to wage war on (I think the idea was for every German man to do a couple of years fighting Slavs, to toughen them up and make them fit citizens of the Reich).

If the Germans were doing much better against both the British Empire and Soviet Union, would the Japanese have behaved differently? Would they have attacked Russia, or made a bigger push in China, rather than attacking the US? Would they have just attacked the (much weakened) British and French colonies, and if they had, would the US have stayed neutral and reached some sort of accommodation? Again, I don't know enough, but I can imagine that having the beaten Brits hiding out in Canada would have rankled with a lot of Americans (and possibly a lot of Canadians!). Also, even if the US and Japan ended up at war, would Hitler have joined in? (Probably, given he did in reality when he didn't need to.) If he did, I just can't imagine the US President (whoever it was) agreeing to the historic 'Germany first' strategy - and with India and Australia to defend, I can see a British Prime Minister also wanting to concentrate on the Japanese.

Also, remember that Hitler, contrary to what so many people say, did not want to take over the world. He wanted Germany to be undisputed master, but he actually saw the British (and French) Empire as a good thing, a bastion against the lesser, non-white races. So, with Churchill and his 'warmongering' like gone from power, we may well have ended up with a Vichy-like arrangement in the UK. (And with no Britain to fight, there would have been little reason for more than a token German presence in France, so Vichy would probably have been extended to the whole country). This arrangement might even have been entered into before Japan entered the war, and would they have wanted to take on an intact (though weakened and subservient) British Empire which was no longer distracted by war in Europe?

So the end result could have been Germany dominating Europe and whatever other parts it wanted, British and French Empires still relatively unscathed in the East (and probably most of Africa), an Italian-dominated Mediteranean with Italy and France squabbling over the Mid-East, a rump Russia used as a continental hunting park, China in an even worse mess, and an isolationist US sulking behind its great ocean moats (or even turning Fascist-lite itself). How long this situation would have lasted is anyone's guess, but it would have been very nasty.

Ethdred

2013-01-23, 12:50 PM

You're... not very good at this, are you? I didn't say it was the most popular thing ever - the point is that it's penetrated the USA and makes rounds there. It's joined by less popular, but still extant, Carribean bands that have seen some success in the USA. Again, things that aren't crushing successes exist and matter. At some point, you may grasp this.

Nor are you - you described it as 'running amok', which is more than just 'penetrated'. It isn't, and hasn't ever been a particularly influential or even big-selling musical form in the USA. He never said that there aren't other types or music, or indeed other sorts of culture. Why do you keep accusing him of this?

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-23, 12:52 PM

Again, things that aren't crushing successes exist and matter.

But not as much. That's my point - that some things, some people, some countries, are more important than others. Remove Joe Schmoe Farmer from the timeline and the effect is probably minimal. Remove Napoleon Bonaparte from the timeline, and the entire world changes.

Does that make Canada European, since it has more in common with Britain than Mexico?

Canada may have more in common with Britain than Mexico, but it has more in common with the United States than Britain.

Shouldn't you be saying this tot he USian talking about how there was nothing important in South America then?

Actually if you go back and read my original post, what I stated was that South America has not left an impact on the world's zeitgeist the way other nations or landmasses have. Not that it's not important, but rather, that its not memorable.

And then I asked you not to use the frankly insulting term of "USian," then you insulted Americans by calling us egotistical and making broad generalizations about us, which is most hypocritical of you, and then we arrived here. Somehow the Turks got involved.

Horse hockey. The Ottomans were the 900 pound gorilla for centuries to the Europeans, an apparently invincible empire

Apparently invincible? Someone needs to read up on Austrian and Italian naval history and the Battle of Lepanto.

Thank-you, Diplomacy. You're welcome, Rogue Shadows.

The Ottomans stagnated in the 1600's and never fully recovered, and that was after a period of recovery from a first period of stagnation and decline. They spent the majority of their six hundred odd years in a state of recession. They were pounded on again and again by the Russians, the Venetians, the Austro-Hungarians, and exhausted themselves trying to keep a hold on the Balkans. They were regarded as the 900 pound gorilla for a little bit, but freakin' Russia outpaced them technologically and militarily, nevermind the other European powers. Their sole impact on world history was that their control of East-West trade through the Levant ports meant that the Portuguese found it more economical to circumnavigate Africa than travel along the Silk Road, which lead Spain to gamble on the idea of a western route to Asia even though they knew it was stupid (as the fact that the world was round and huge was a well-known fact and its circumference had been known to within a hundred kilometers for literally millennia. Columbus was an idiot who thought that the world was about half the size it actually is and he just happened to get lucky).

And in real history, which is where facts live, pretending that current power (and not even the level of dominance you imagine - see the comments about a monopolar world view) invalidates the historical significance of everyone not related to you makes you an ignorant, nationalistic fool.

I haven't even been claiming that the world is monopolar in the truist sense of the term. I've continuously pointed out that America depends upon China, and vice-versa.

Having said that, it is stupid to claim that America is not the global hegemon around which the world turns. Like I said - somewhere between a fourth and a fifth of the world's wealth, about half of the world's peacekeepers, a third of the world's foreign aid, the world's largest exporter of food, and so on. It's possible to have a multipolar world, and still have one of the poles be more important than the rest.

I'm not saying you should bow down and worship America as your new God - I'm just saying that you shouldn't be belittling it and disregarding it as much as you are.

It's not right for an American to call someone a chink, or a polack, or a spic, or a cannuk or kraut or frog or limey. So why is it okay for you to called us "USians?" Again, it's frankly insulting, and so far the only reason you've provided is "I'm exceptional."

Also, China is approximately 10% of the world's population - they don't need the US to have massive effects on the global economy, you are just trying to rationalize your own arrogance again.

First, China is closer to 14-16% of the world's population, which is a huge difference. Second, when you have a country with a billion people in it, of course you're going to have a huge impact on the world's economy. But third, let's look at some facts. The average income in China is about $5400 per capita in 2011. The average income in America in 2011 is about $48,000 (IMF numbers being used here). China's closest neighbors in this regard are the Dominican Republic, Libya, Algeria (higher), and Thailand, Angola, and Jamaica (lower) - third world industrial countries all. America's are Austria, Singapore, and Finland (higher) and Ireland, Belgium, and Japan (Lower) - first world posindustrial nations all.

It is remarkable only in its size, and therefore number of workers. But its foreign aid is negligible, its foreign military presence is negligible, its exports less than half the amount of food that America does and imports less than a fourth. China is incapable of projecting power the way America is. America's GDP is $14,991,300,000,000, China's is $7,203,784,000,000 - just over half, all of it a result of its sheer population and not really an accurate reflection of its status as a nation.

China is a third-world nation still, though arguably the most important third world nation on the planet. Its global impact if it disappeared would be terrible. But if America disappeared, the global impact would be catastrophic. America needs China and China needs America, but China needs America more than America needs China. It's a symbiotic relationship, but not an equal one.

That's what I'm arguing. Not that China, or indeed any nation, aren't important - just that America is more important than any one of them. America is indeed more important than a few entire continents (namely Africa and Australia). The GDP of the whole of Africa, every country in it, and yes, I'm including Egypt, is $1,880,380,000,000 - 12% that of the United States.

It's primarily the US and Canada, trust me.

Why should I? I've actually backed up what I've been saying with links to impartial sources, provided maps, Hell, I even started an entirely separate thread on a separate site, just for this.

You've been going "Nuh-uh!"

The Carribean is usually included in the mythical 'central america', and I promise you it doesn't really have strong similarities with Mexico or Panama.

The "mythical Central America" isn't even an American invention, it's a Spanish/Mexican one, the fallout result of the Spanish Empire collapsing.

Additionally, here's some reading.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America#Usage)
In English-speaking countries, Central America is usually considered a region of the North American continent. Geopolitically, it usually comprises seven countries – Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. Mexico, in whole or in part, is sometimes included, regardless of correctness, by Britons. Some geographers include the five states of Campeche, Chiapas, Tabasco, Quintana Roo, and Yucatán, together representing 12.1% of the country's total area.
In Latin America, Iberia, and some other parts of Europe, the Americas are considered to be a single continent called America, and Central America is considered a distinct region of this continent and not a part of North America. In Ibero-America, the region is defined as seven nations – Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama – and may occasionally include Mexico's southernmost region. Geopolitically, Mexico is considered part of North America.
Occasionally, regardless of correctness, the term Central America is used synonymously with Middle America. Among some German geographers, Mittelamerika may be used to refer to the territories on the Central American isthmus.
In German, Zentralamerika may be used to refer to the territories on the Central American isthmus.
The UN geoscheme defines the region as all states of mainland North America south of the United States; conversely, the European Union excludes Belize and Mexico from its definition of the region

Oh, look at that, the UN acknowledges the existence of this mythical land...look, here's the short version: once you get beyond whether or not a given area of land actually physically exists in the real world (i.e., is this island actually there?), geography becomes ridiculously, impossibly complicated and subject to opinion.

Morph Bark

2013-01-23, 01:20 PM

Shouldn't you be saying this tot he USian talking about how there was nothing important in South America then?

Just because one man is in the wrong doesn't mean another man is not.

On the wider topic, I think part of the problem (leaving aside a lack of education :smallsmile: ) is that most other cultures have not had a Tolkein. In his Middle Earth writings he was explicitly taking his knowledge of various European mythologies and producing new stories for his time. Which is why creatures like dwarves and trolls (and I'm amused to see 'dwarves' gets picked up as a mis-spelling) appear in so many role-playing games today and, for example, Orishas don't. Since most fantasy literature and role-playing games have been written by people of European heritage, they tend likewise to focus on familiar settings and stories, and this has a self-reinforcing tendency: people who buy fantasy literature like to read about vampires, so people write books about vampires and hordes of pale and interesting teenagers fantasise about being vampires, not penanggalan. The reason that you can more easily think of a Chinese/Japanese campaign than a Vietnamese-influenced one is due to the success of their media (especially, I would say, anime) in spreading mythologies from that part of the world. Hopefully, in a few years we'll have a break-out Nollywood fantasy epic and all the kids will be doing West African-themed campaigns :smallsmile:

Yeah, I hear you there. I kind of wonder what literature and other media would be suitable for comparison to the effect that Tolkien had on Western literature. Perhaps that Things Fall Apart novel mentioned earlier might be of that vein, but that is only an example for one such region.

What is this "Nollywood" you mention though? Does Africa nowadays have a movie-making center akin to Holly/Bollywood?

Answering only the OP:

When I think of Mesoamerican or South American fantasy, what I think of is the Bronze Age turned up to 11. Ancient, powerful empires whose cultural achievements have far outstripped their technological ones, seperated by vast, impenetrable distances filled with ruins, isolationist tribes that resist incursion by imperial forces, and deadly monsters. I also tend to think of theocratic societies with little in the way of trade routes between them.

When I think of African fantasy, by contrast, I think of tribal fiction. This is probably terrible of me. Tribes of people in loose confederations, a land where spirits and magic still rule and you have to know what to oppose and what to appease in order to survive. Gods that walk the earth. Societies that are based around the bravery of the individual and the support of the community, and which tend to be quite small and close-knit. Not unlike old Celtic fantasy, actually.

I like how often "turned up to 11" gets thrown around here, as that's exactly what I'm going for. :smallbiggrin:

Is Celtic fantasy that much different from medieval fantasy that it bears closer resemblance to the imagery of African myth (to you), really? I mean, 'sfar as I know, the Celts stretched out pretty far, but not further down than Spain.

Still, kinda surprised most people have Africa as a "Savage Land" sort of concept. I mean at one point in history, you had the greatest known collection of knowledge and learning in the world in Central Africa. They were in their own rights a cultured, advanced land. Sure there were also the tribes that we consider primitive, but it wasn't the end all, be all.

Also Africa gets associated a lot with "Dragons" in my mind. A lot of their local legends and myths had various winged beasts and serpents. Not to mention as someone referenced the Mirage block in Magic: The Gathering being African Themed it had a lot more Dragons than norm. Both of which kind of cement the "Dragonland" theme in my mind.

I nodded at the part where you mention Africa had the greatest known collection of knowledge and learning in the world up until the point where I discovered you weren't talking about the Library of Alexandria. Might I inquire what collection you're referring to?

And yeah, I want to keep the "Savage Land" image kind of out of my campaign setting's Africa-equivalent. It's already gotten a beaten by primal forces, so I intend to keep it wondrous in the cultural department. I wasn't aware Africa is so associated with dragons though! I'll be sure to check in on those Magic sets' cards and cross-reference them with some African mythologies. There's quite some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mythologies#Africa) to dig through. Shame most aren't that well-documented in the West.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-23, 01:25 PM

Might I inquire what collection you're referring to?

Timbuktu, most likely, under the Mali Empire.

ArcturusV

2013-01-23, 01:26 PM

I was referring to the Mali, and the city of Timbuktoo. Which during the 12th or 13th century, I can't quite remember off the top of my head, was basically the crossroads at the center of all trade across the African Continent and was a huge cultural beacon and known for having greater repositories of literature than pretty much any other contemporary comparable city.

Edit: Or Rogue just beat me to it.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-23, 01:32 PM

Edit: Or Rogue just beat me to it.

:smallbiggrin: I'm not just a jingoist...

Anyway, yeah, what Arcturus said in more detail. Though, it's notable that Timbuktu (or Timbuktoo, or Timbuctoo, if you prefer...it's a Czar/Csar/Tzar/Tsar situation, none of the spellings are technically right or wrong) was largely closed to non-Muslims under the Songhai, Tuareg, and Moroccans, to the point where the French offered a 10,000 franc reward to the European who could journey to Timbuktu and return alive with information about it. Not because it was hard to get to, but rather because the Muslims literally killed non-Muslims who tried.

So it's a library-city and a forbidden city all in one!

RPGuru1331

2013-01-23, 02:03 PM

But not as much. That's my point - that some things, some people, some countries, are more important than others. Remove Joe Schmoe Farmer from the timeline and the effect is probably minimal. Remove Napoleon Bonaparte from the timeline, and the entire world changes.
You spent two pages whining about how people paid attention to South America at all. You complained because people didn't agree that hte USA and modern day europe were the most important things in the history of ever, and gave a bunkum view of a teleological history to justify treating the parts that you, personally, don't identify with as irrelevant. This is obviously not all you want to talk about.

Canada may have more in common with Britain than Mexico, but it has more in common with the United States than Britain.
I'm going out on a limb, in that I'm not, and guessing you don't really know jack about Mexico.

Actually if you go back and read my original post, what I stated was that South America has not left an impact on the world's zeitgeist the way other nations or landmasses have. Not that it's not important, but rather, that its not memorable.
"The world's zeitgeist" is meaningless bunkum created by an old, dead philosopher, and still untrue - that you're not familiar with modern day south america's cultural, industrial, or diplomatic ties to the rest of the world doesn't change that they exist.

Apparently invincible? Someone needs to read up on Austrian and Italian naval history and the Battle of Lepanto.

You need to read up on sentence structure and word definitions - 'apparently' was a key word in that sentence. Lepanto wasn't an important victory in and of itself. What it did was show the rest of Europe that it was possible for the Ottomans to be beaten. As far as the Ottomans of the time were concerned, it was a meaningless victory by primarily Venice, because it was - they had plenty more ships, and could and would still win a war of attrition.

They were regarded as the 900 pound gorilla for a little bit,
This is classic, really, because that 'little bit' was longer htan US history, and especially longer than the US' dominant period.

then you insulted Americans by calling us egotistical and making broad generalizations about us[/quote]
IT's like you want to have your cake and eat it too. You can't stand that I'm not recognizing you as the most unabashedly important thing in history, you can't or won't understand that this isn't an impulse limited to you, I point out that it's a well-documented habit of very powerful countries and empires, and you're still angry that I say USians are egotists, just as those other powerful countries and empires were.

which is most hypocritical of you, and then we arrived here. Somehow the Turks got involved.
The Turks were initially involved because you claimed the middle east hadn't had any impact outside of passively controlling things 'western civilization' wanted. Someone else pointed out that you were painting their fall drastically different to that of 'western civilizations' (I for, one, would have expected a similar reaction of "Pft, they fell apart and lost most of their lands" regarding the English Empire, if I were in the habit of letting myself get disappointed), and then you tried to defend your habit of minimizing them again.

The Ottomans stagnated in the 1600's and never fully recovered, and that was after a period of recovery from a first period of stagnation and decline. They spent the majority of their six hundred odd years in a state of recession.
Someone tried to read a wikipedia page again, and again failed to understand the contents...

They were pounded on again and again by the Russians, the Venetians, the Austro-Hungarians, and exhausted themselves trying to keep a hold on the Balkans.
Yep, all of that after more or less soloing Europe, north africa, and western asia for a couple centuries - if you were in the habit of treating anything like you do the USA, you'd probably give them some respect for that (and maybe treat them as the most important thing in ever), but you're not. And when the USA is being outpaced 10 to 30 years from now, I'll be laughing myself hoarse in memory of every US Citizen who does the same thing when discussing history.
Also, pretending Russia was a failure during this era is... funny, and not really demonstrating a command of history.

Their sole impact on world history was that their control of East-West trade through the Levant ports meant that the Portuguese found it more economical to circumnavigate Africa than travel along the Silk Road
Even if you pretend only white people's perspective matters, this is demonstrably not true, because that control lead them to extort europe for an extended period of time, and didn't only matter when the Portuguese started rounding Africa. Those of us who don't pretend only white people's perspective matters are familiar with the wars with the timurids, the wars in arabia, with the Mameluks, the proliferation of Islamic Culture...

I haven't even been claiming that the world is monopolar in the truist sense of the term. I've continuously pointed out that America depends upon China, and vice-versa.
No, you conceded these things after people have latched onto your ignorant statements and you only grudgingly grant that a couple other states have power.

the world's largest exporter of food, and so on.
Child, if you knew anything, you'd know how this status was artificially maintained - but you don't.

I'm not saying you should bow down and worship America as your new God. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be belittling it and disregarding it as much as you are.
[/quote]
You aren't even happy being told it's currently the strongest - this is obviously untrue. You want criticism-free acceptance of the idea that the USA is the bestest thing ever

It's not right for an American to call someone a chink, or a polack, or a spic, or a cannuk or kraut or frog or limey. So why is it okay for you to called us "USians?"
One of us doesn't understand power dynamics or the ideas behind slurs. What's really funny is using this for USian - I've met a number of USians who prefer using it to American, because there is a pair of continents called America that is not entirely made up of US Citizens. It is in fact the closest way to translate the entirely neutral "Estadounidense" - because other people are no less annoyed with the USA claiming such a level of primacy.

It's frickin' ridiculous how anyone can confuse not being treated with the undeserved respect they feel is their due with a slur. This is how little you know about slurs - that not having your ego maintained is confused with one.

Again, it's frankly insulting, and so far the only reason you've provided is "I'm exceptional."
Uh, I gave you the actual reason immediately - you aren't actually the sole inhabitants of the Americas. That you insist on maintaining this delusion of unparalleled historical importance is the majority of why I say you're egotistical, but it isn't every single aspect of it.

First, China is closer to 14-16% of the world's population, which is a huge difference.
Sure, you can undermine yourself all you want. I didn't really care, because 10% is sufficient to not need the USA to have an effect, but if you want to shoot yourself in the foot I don't see why you need my permission.

Second, when you have a country with a billion people in it, of course you're going to have a huge impact on the world's economy.
Is that so difficult to admit without a qualifier? Yeah, apparently it is.

America's are Austria, Singapore, and Finland (higher) and Ireland, Belgium, and Japan (Lower) - first world posindustrial nations all.
Heeheehee. One of us is aware of the difference between the mean, median, and mode, and which one actually matters for income (especially in the USA).

It is remarkable only in its size, and therefore number of workers.
My god you are an ignoramus. Do you have any idea how much China is working - successfully - to expand its international position in terms of influence? Do you not know who is one of the largest investors in green energy tech? But no, they're entirely irrelevant except for their size. *Shakes head*.

just over half, all of it a result of its sheer population and not really an accurate reflection of its status as a nation.
...it's population is part of its status as a nation.

China is a third-world nation still
So is the USA in terms of real benefits to its populace, but I don't see you sacking it. Also, again, China's middle class is larger than the entire US populace.

But if America disappeared, the global impact would be catastrophic.
The loss of two continents would be pretty important. But you know, that doesn't happen in the real world, because it's the real world, not a silly alternate history site. In the real world, the more likely scenario is slow decline with new markets and new economies picking up the slack - which is what's happening now

(namely Africa and Australia).
I can't say for sure with australia, but Africa not only has a considerable amount of industry going, but it has a lot of resources physically carried out and used by the rest of the world. That doesn't make it irrelevant, it makes it dominated.

Why should I? I've actually backed up what I've been saying with links to impartial sources, provided maps
A map says jack about culture, unless it's mapping a particular cultural phenomena or we're in a Paradox game. Neither of these is the case, so your maps are worthless. What's supposed to be the great big link that makes Jamaica culturally similar to Panama? Haiti and Mexico? The Caymans and Puerto Rico? The Dominican Republic and Mexico? The Carribean doesn't even share consistent cultural links with itself as a region. One could potentially group central america as a geographic region, but not on the grounds of its 'cultural similarities' as is generally the case (including just now) What that means in practice is 'places not run by white people'.

Also, superb job of not doing the thing you just complained that USians don't do.

Hell, I even started an entirely separate thread on a separate site, just for this.
And if I had any interest in the opinions of 'alternate history' types, I'd probably go, but I don't.

You've been going "Nuh-uh!"

I've more been shaking my head at your ignorance.

The "mythical Central America" isn't even an American invention, it's a Spanish one...
And that would make it better for you to perpetuate how?

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-23, 02:35 PM

New page, so I've decided I'm basically done with you, RPGuru, but I do want to touch on this.

I'm going out on a limb, in that I'm not, and guessing you don't really know jack about Mexico.

Off the top of my head - no searches, I promise.

Official name is the United Mexican States - Los Estados Mexicanos. Spanish speaking predominantly (for a certain value of "Spanish," anyway, the dialect is very different from the Spanish currently spoken in Spain, though it is still mutually intelligible - it's a greater difference than, say, American and British English, but a smaller one than Mandarin and Cantonese) but with significant minorities of Nahuatl and other Mesoamerican languages; second most populous country in North America, IIRC (does it have Canada beat...? I'm gonna check after I'm done here), and I think the largest Spanish-speaking country in the world. Excellent ports on its western side in...damn, can't remember if it's Sonora or Chihuahua that borders the Gulf of California. Speaking of, in Mexico (and around California), the Gulf of California is more commonly referred to as the Sea of Cortez.

The Mexican currency is the peso. Off the top of my head I think one peso is worth about 1/20th of an American dollar, but I've never been to Mexico so I don't know for certain.

Mexico is named for the predominant group of peoples living in the region that Hernan Cortez encountered, the Mexica, of which the Aztecs were a specific sub-group. The Aztec capital city of Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities (possibly the largest) in the world at the time of Cortez's arrival with something in the vicinity of a million people living in and around its environs. The modern city of Mexico City (Mexico, DF) is built atop of its ruins. The Aztecs were defeated by Cortez and the Spanish Conquistadors, although technically they were actually beaten by a number of other native peoples who really hated their guts due to the Aztecs being horrible, horrible people (not that the other natives, or the Spanish themselves, were really much better). Principally this means the inhabitants of Tlaxcala. The last Aztec Emperor (Huey Tlatolani in Nahuatl IIRC) was Cuahtemoc, who was tortured to death by Cortez looking for gold, although Cortez himself admitted that he wished he hadn't done that and seemed to respect Cuahtemoc. Prior to Cuahtemoc the Emperor was Moctezuma (or Montezuma, it's a Tsar/Tzar/Czar/Csar situation again), who was killed by his own people due to basically hanging Tenochtitlan over to the Spanish, as Moctezuma believed that Cortez was Quetzalcoatl. Other important Aztec deities which I remember off the top of my head include Tlatoc, Eueucoyotol, Xipe Totec, and of course, Huitzilopochtli.

Anyway, enough about the Aztecs. After the Aztecs were defeated the Spanish spent about a hundred and fifty years pacifying and Spanish-ifying Mexico (as the Aztecs were just one tribe out of hundreds - Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was Mexico). The Viceroyalty of New Spain, what would eventually become Mexico, stretched from the Yucatan Peninsula in the south to as far north as modern Oregon. The area south of the Rio Grande was the focus of much more development.

I forget the day that Mexico achieved independence from Spain. Sorry.

Interesting fact: Mexico is basically responsible for the end of slavery in the US. See, Mexico was, as previously mentioned, freakin' huge, and there simply weren't enough Mexicans to settle the parts north of the Rio Grand. So, the Mexicans put out an open invitation to American settlers to settle that area, especially Tejas. They did not have to become Mexican citizens, but they had to follow Mexican laws, which was fine by the Tejanos - until the Mexicans decided to abolish slavery. The Tejanos did not want to give up their slaves (this is usually left out of discussions about Texan independent by Texans), and this lead to the Texas War of Independence, which was badly mismanaged by Santa Anna. Aside about Santa Anna - he called himself the Napoleon of the West, but he is generally regarded as the worst general in history. So he's sort of the Antinapoleon.

Anyway, following Texan independence, Texas basically spend ten years begging to be let into the USA (another thing often left out - the Texans didn't want to be the lone star state). Border skirmishes between Texas, Mexico, and the USA over this matter eventually lead to the Mexican-American War, which was once again badly mismanaged by Santa Anna. As a result of the war, Mexico lost just over half of its territory, basically all of its land north of the Rio Grande, although it was payed $4,000,000 in return, and in all honesty Mexico was better off without that land anyway since at the time it was basically worthless (no gold nor oil had yet been discovered, and without that it was basically miles and miles of desert and brushland). As a result of gaining so much land, America started running into slave state/free state problems, which lead to the Civil War. So, again: Mexico is basically responsible for the end of slavery in the US. Good for Mexico!

Anyway, after that tidbit my knowledge of Mexican history in the 1800s gets a little fuzzy. There were some problems with the French trying to imperialism the place via Maximillian, but it didn't work out. Mexico basically spent its time bouncing between military junta to military junta. In World War I, the Germans supposedly sent the Zimmerman Telegram to try and convince Mexico to preemptively attack America and join the Central Powers, but the Mexicans had no interest in doing that, and there's strong evidence to suggst that the British faked the telegram anyway.

Once again my knowledge of Mexican history gets a bit fuzzy from here on out, as bluntly I live in Massachusetts and so Mexican affairs do not generally directly impact me. I do know that in the early 90s, Mexico nearly went bankrupt and needed to borrow a lot of money from the USA - and had paid it all back by the late 90s. Good for you, Mexico! You can borrow our money any time.

Mexico is currently in something that's just one step short of a civil war, dealing with an awful lot of drug cartels in its north. It's bad enough that the police wear masks and don't have to cut their hair in order to hide their faces, so that there won't be reprisals against their families. America has sat out, however, at the request of the Mexican government.

Despite its relatively weak currency and low GDP per capita, Mexico is a fully industrialized nation. People there have most of the same things that can be found in America (running water, electricity, iPods, Internet, etc). Mexico City is one of the largest cities in the world; IIRC it has 20,000,000 people living in it.

Mexico is one of the few nations on the planet capable of autarky - that is, going it alone, without any foreign aid. It can supply its own food, water, and oil, and of course has a strong and stable industrial base. Still, it does not practice autarky, because it's always better to have friends. Mexico is a member of many trade unions in North America and Latin America and considers itself a leader of the later. Mexico's largest trading partner is the United States of America.

Hmm, let's see, what else do I know about Mexico...nnnope, nothing. That exhausts my off-the-top-of-my-head knowledge of Mexico.

Now, quick: off the top of your head, tell me everything you can about Azerbaijan!

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-23, 02:39 PM

Followup after some checking: Yes, Mexico is the second-most populous North American country after the US, at about 116 million people, as compared to Canada's (the third-largest) 34.6 million.

Also, I was right, Mexico is the largest Spanish-speaking country in the world, with more than double the number of Spanish-speakers in Spain (the next largest overall) and Columbia (the next largest in the Americas).

I was completely wrong about the value of a peso, however. 1 dollar is worth 12.66 pesos. My bad - sorry, Mexico!

Also, as for the lending/paying back/90s thing I mentioned, I can't seem to find it, though I remember reading about it somewhere...

I was basically right about Mexico City's population (21 million), if we're talking about the metropolitan area. It's the 7th largest in the world. For comparison, NYC including metropolitan area is the 9th largest at about 19 million people.

Hey, something else I just remembered - isn't the wealthiest man in the world right now Mexican?

Yes! Carlos Slim Helu. He's worth about 69 billion.

EDIT

I'm weak, I want to touch on this as well.

My god you are an ignoramus. Do you have any idea how much China is working - successfully - to expand its international position in terms of influence? Do you not know who is one of the largest investors in green energy tech? But no, they're entirely irrelevant except for their size. *Shakes head*.

Sure, China's up and coming. Sure, in fifty years, or a hundred years, it'll be a first-world, strong, and powerful nation. But they are not yet meaningfully competing with the US.

To be considered a superpower, a nation has to meet the following criterion:
1. Possession of a large, habitable landmass;
2. A substantial population (200,000,000+);
3. A substantial industrial base with an integrated scientific community;
4. Economic and financial independence or dominance;
5. The ability to project military power anywhere on the globe; and
6. The ability to influence events anywhere on the globe through economic, cultural, or political power as well as military strength.

China does not meet points 3, 4, 5, and 6, although they are working on it - but they're not there yet and they won't be for some time. India similarly does not meet those requirements. 1, 2, and 4 show why Britain dropped out of the club in 1948. Points 2 and 5 rule out Canada. The EU lacks 3 and 5, and Russia dropped out due to no longer being able to maintain 4, 5, or 6.

When China can meet these requirements, then it will be an equal partner in US-Chinese relations.

Friv

2013-01-23, 03:03 PM

Is Celtic fantasy that much different from medieval fantasy that it bears closer resemblance to the imagery of African myth (to you), really? I mean, 'sfar as I know, the Celts stretched out pretty far, but not further down than Spain.

Absolutely.

For the most part, medieval fantasy is tamed. You have large, mercantile nations, running on a feudalistic model, with magical beings pushed back to the edges of the world and generally frowned upon in standard society, even where they are accepted. Political strife between lords is a big deal, as is courtly intrigue, and the strain between the peasant and noble orders are also important. You've got a Church which is both part of and apart from the social order, and which wields extensive political power as a seperate organization.

Celtic fantasy is classic savage world. Battles between armies are, for the most part, really battles between heroes. The gods walk the Earth, giving blessings and taking direct part in mortal battles, and the wrong turn from your clan will take you into a supernatural being's stronghold. Small collections of clans might or might not ally against an external threat, but their politics are the politics of the individual instead of the house. Religion is important but integrated, and class distinctions are rarely if ever touched upon; the gap between the noble and his people, while still probably large in truth, gets glossed over and downplayed. Waves of supernatural beings battle with one another, using humans as their allies or pawns.

Poison_Fish

2013-01-23, 03:13 PM

Roman Empire and Ottoman empire

I included it exactly as it is when it was an empire. Not as a Republic. Don't like me playing the context-less game? Then don't do it yourself.

I guess you don't know much about how the fall of the Byzantine empire. Considering your view of what history is, as in it has a "purpose", you are not going to get fair in the field of history. Given that you can only talk about ww1 when talking of the Ottoman empire, only because you characterize it as a "failure", says more about your lack of knowledge then anything about history. Especially when it's demonstrable that it's impact was significant and that you clearly have avoided that history based on your faulty belief.

On you continuing to not understand American Exceptionalism as an ideology
Stop it. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=American+exceptionalism&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=) You only continue your misunderstanding.

Having said that, it is stupid to claim that America is not the global hegemon around which the world turns. Like I said - somewhere between a fourth and a fifth of the world's wealth, about half of the world's peacekeepers, a third of the world's foreign aid, the world's largest exporter of food, and so on. It's possible to have a multipolar world, and still have one of the poles be more important than the rest.

That you are calling them peacekeepers instead of military forces is demonstrating your nationalism. I'd also like to point out that no one is claiming America does not have significant power. We are criticizing you for your lack of knowledge and acting as if only Western history mattered in a thread specifically about not going with standard fantasy tropes. This says more about you then you have anything to say on history as a field.

first, China is closer to 14-16% of the world's population, which is a huge difference. Second, when you have a country with a billion people in it, of course you're going to have a huge impact on the world's economy. But third, let's look at some facts. The average income in China is about $5400 per capita in 2011. The average income in America in 2011 is about $48,000 (IMF numbers being used here). China's closest neighbors in this regard are the Dominican Republic, Libya, Algeria (higher), and Thailand, Angola, and Jamaica (lower) - third world industrial countries all. America's are Austria, Singapore, and Finland (higher) and Ireland, Belgium, and Japan (Lower) - first world posindustrial nations all.

China is a third-world nation still, though arguably the most important third world nation on the planet. Its global impact if it disappeared would be terrible. But if America disappeared, the global impact would be catastrophic. America needs China and China needs America, but China needs America more than America needs China. It's a symbiotic relationship, but not an equal one.

Ignoring that you are using terminology from a time that no longer exists, I'd like to point out several things on your bad numbers game here. First, trying to make a claim because of income per capita from China to the US is blindingly ignorant of economic policies. It's not the causal mechanism you think it is because 1. Price of goods are different and 2. China Artificially undervalues it's currency which allows for much market control. The US is quite unhappy about this and it deeply disrupts your attempt and trying to explain a power relationship.

Second, the US for an industrialized nation (And this is the term you want to be using, not cold war ideology) has some of the greatest inequality. A look at it's gini coefficient has it surpassing Russia. So, please understand that pulling income per capita has a lot of problems, and are not the causal mechanisms you are looking for. Especially if you are going to start with quality of life statements.

Seriously, Rogue Shadow, from my best guess your understanding of history and it's contexts comes from video games and wikipedia. While I won't diminish these things (there is obviously some great information in there, fun, and easily accessible) you are lacking any sort of context beyond a qualitative "better" game that you keep trying to play, despite insisting otherwise (and then you poorly try and put quantitative measures while not even understanding the details behind them: See, Coke, GDP, Income per capita). That you also play a rote memorization game here, and then insist that because of your rote memorization, Western history is more important betrays you deeply. As I said earlier, all you are showing is that you don't have contextual knowledge, and you are getting angry for being called out on this. You also ignored the rest of my criticisms earlier and focused my comparing of your malarkey with the Ottomans and how you wouldn't apply it to other falling periods of states.

As for another idea, now that the Celts got brought up, have you considered exploring a Mediterranean-like city state period for fantasy? In there you can have mythical islands baring riches and strange creatures, a reason to explore based on different competing philosophies, and so on.

Admiral Squish

2013-01-23, 03:30 PM

I'm just gonna leave this link here.
Alt-History North America Setting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268665)
I think the people who look in on this thread might find it interesting.

Morph Bark

2013-01-23, 03:35 PM

As for another idea, now that the Celts got brought up, have you considered exploring a Mediterranean-like city state period for fantasy? In there you can have mythical islands baring riches and strange creatures, a reason to explore based on different competing philosophies, and so on.

Actually, I hadn't quite considered that yet! I started with a city-state there (Minervum), then built a country around it (Ro'emania) and decided to make it an empire. It actually fits much better as a group of city-states that are very similar culturally, but competing economically and philosophically, in the same sense as the Italian city-states and the ancient Greek ones. Thanks for bringing it up!

I'm just gonna leave this link here.
Alt-History North America Setting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268665)
I think the people who look in on this thread might find it interesting.

I have seen your thread. It's quite inspiring. While present-day Zailleon (the North America-equivalent in my campaign setting) is largely ruled by a single empire, it was much more fractured a century prior. Your ideas and others' in your thread are quite inspiring to build up a history from for it. :smallsmile:

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-23, 03:38 PM

I included it exactly as it is when it was an empire. Not as a Republic. Don't like me playing the context-less game? Then don't do it yourself.

What, you want to define strictly by the survival of a state that thought of itself as the Roman Empire? Fine, then we include the Roman Empire in its entirety - the Roman period, the Byzantine period, and the Ottoman period, which is 2,000 years or so. The Ottomans...still about 620.

Or we include just the Roman and Byzantine period, as Gibbon did, we still get about 1,400 years.

Like I said, defining "Roman Empire" is not as easy as you make it out to be. History is not divided into clean slices for the benefit of historians.

Besides which, that still leaves by second point, which is that the Roman Empire had a larger world impact than the Ottoman one.

I guess you don't know much about how the fall of the Byzantine empire.

It was a long, slow, painful decline before the Ottomans finally put it out of its misery.

Considering your view of what history is, as in it has a "purpose",

When did I ever say it had a purpose? I said that the immediate moment is the most important moment in history, because the past has already happened and the future isn't something we're going to get to unless we live through the moment. That is not even close to stating that history has a purpose.

Given that you can only talk about ww1 when talking of the Ottoman empire, only because you characterize it as a "failure", says more about your lack of knowledge then anything about history. Especially when it's demonstrable that it's impact was significant and that you clearly have avoided that history based on your faulty belief.

I haven't avoided it. It is because I know of its history, that I know that the Ottoman Empire, while a significant regional power for a long period of time, did not have a major world impact, next to the impact of the Roman Empire.

You only continue your misunderstanding

You realize that exact article is where I got the definition of American Exceptionalism from in the first place, right? And that further the article itself points out that the context that you are using it in is wrong?

That you are calling them peacekeepers instead of military forces is demonstrating your nationalism.

Actually I'm calling them peacekeepers because that's what they're called by the UN. Also I'd love to see what would happen to South Korea if all American troops left.

Oh, it'd win the war with North Korea, but firstly there'd be a war, and secondly Seoul would be utterly lost. Poor, poor Seoul and its millions of inhabitants that are basically being held hostage by North Korea via artillery and missiles that could level the city inside of half an hour. If only American military presence hadn't disappeared.

EDIT: the above was sarcastic. It was always meant to be sarcastic, but I didn't get that across very well. I do not want Seoul to be destroyed by North Korea, and I would not be happy if such were to happen.

I'd also like to point out that no one is claiming America does not have significant power. We are criticizing you for your lack of knowledge and acting as if only Western history mattered

Actually I've been saying most important. It is an important distinction.

Ignoring that you are using terminology from a time that no longer exists,

What, 2011? It was the most up-to-date numbers I could find. I don't think things have changed that much in a year, however.

Oh, you mean third world.

First, trying to make a claim because of income per capita from China to the US is blindingly ignorant of economic policies. It's not the causal mechanism you think it is because 1. Price of goods are different and 2. China Artificially undervalues it's currency which allows for much market control. The US is quite unhappy about this and it deeply disrupts your attempt and trying to explain a power relationship.

Whether or not China could be more powerful if it didn't play with a hand tied behind its back is irrelevant. It is playing in such a way and is judged accordingly.

Second, the US for an industrialized nation (And this is the term you want to be using, not cold war ideology)

Actually the US is postindustrial.

has some of the greatest inequality.

Maybe, but first, Russia is moving into postindustrial status as well, so I don't really consider that bad (seriously, Russia isn't a horrible place to live; I mean it's not great, next to, say, Finland, but it's not bad); second, regardless of where the USA sits in terms of poverty and income and so on, it is still far, far ahead of China, so the fundamental point remains unchanged.

Oh, and America may be ranked 13th in terms of quality of life, but China is ranked 60th. So...yeah, take from that what you will.

Morph Bark

2013-01-23, 03:44 PM

Poison_Fish

2013-01-23, 04:03 PM

What, you want to define strictly by the survival of a state that thought of itself as the Roman Empire? Fine, then we include the Roman Empire in its entirety - the Roman period, the Byzantine period, and the Ottoman period, which is 2,000 years or so. The Ottomans...still about 620.

Or we include just the Roman and Byzantine period, as Gibbon did, we still get about 1,400 years.

Like I said, defining "Roman Empire" is not as easy as you make it out to be. History is not divided into clean slices for the benefit of historians.

Besides which, that still leaves by second point, which is that the Roman Empire had a larger world impact than the Ottoman one.

And you miss the point again about context.

When did I ever say it had a purpose? I said that the immediate moment is the most important moment in history, because the past has already happened and the future isn't something we're going to get to unless we live through the moment. That is not even close to stating that history has a purpose.

See back with what Terra was saying. That you treat history in this manner is rather annoying consider the lengths you are going to justify not knowing things.

I haven't avoided it. It is because I know of its history, that I know that the Ottoman Empire, while a significant regional power for a long period of time, did not have a major world impact, next to the impact of the Roman Empire.

You clearly don't know, considering that you have been making qualitative statements based on exceptionalism rather then looking at measurable impact. And again, may I remind you this is still all coming out from you being extremely dismissive to other regions, in a thread about not going with the common tropes of fantasy, because you couldn't figure out how they functioned and influenced the world. That you pretend your statements are "Truth" is also a problem.

You realize that exact article is where I got the definition of American Exceptionalism from in the first place, right? And that further the article itself points out that the context that you are using it in is wrong?

So you want to make a validity statement about wikipedia vs. the thousands of articles I linked from google scholar? Because again, you assume that we are using this incorrectly when I already pointed out that you have misread the wikipedia article in the first place.

Actually I'm calling them peacekeepers because that's what they're called by the UN. Also I'd love to see what would happen to South Korea if all American troops left.

You still don't seem to get the connection between dominant powers of the time and how they fall apart.

Actually I've been saying most important. It is an important distinction.

Based on your arbitrary notion and ignoring context, yes. As I said, even realists would disagree with you.

Whether or not China could be more powerful if it didn't play with a hand tied behind its back is irrelevant. It is playing in such a way and is judged accordingly.

You do not have the capacity to make that judgement based on your poor understanding of how these things play out. It is not irrelevant because you are making a claim of it not mattering, while not managing to grasp just what this means. The slew of economists, comparative political scientists, and other analysts would disagree with your assessment. The point is, the numbers game doesn't validate your argument.

Actually the US is postindustrial.

Yes, you got me there on term usage.

Maybe, but first, Russia is moving into postindustrial status as well, so I don't really consider that bad (seriously, Russia isn't a horrible place to live; I mean it's not great, next to, say, Finland, but it's not bad); second, regardless of where the USA sits in terms of poverty and income and so on, it is still far, far ahead of China, so the fundamental point remains unchanged.

Oh, and America may be ranked 13th in terms of quality of life, but China is ranked 60th. So...yeah, take from that what you will.

That you are still not getting why these numbers are being brought up and then replay it back into a superiority game again betrays your direction. As far as you have demonstrated, you are an exceptionalist that specifically ignores context.

Poison_Fish

2013-01-23, 04:08 PM

Friv

2013-01-23, 04:52 PM

RPGuru1331

2013-01-23, 06:11 PM

Kid, y ou shoulda made it less obvious you were cribbing off wikipedia to talk about mexico. You still clearly don't know jack. That's why you think mexican affairs don't affect you despite the fact that you are a US citizen and thus almost certainly use gasoline. You brought the same c-level rote memorization skills you've been using. Facts, but no connections, no why. History doesn't make sense when it's just a jumble of facts, because then you don't know what matters.

When did I ever say it had a purpose?
"The past is a practice run for now" is a blatant way of saying that, actually.

I haven't avoided it. It is because I know of its history, that I know that the Ottoman Empire, while a significant regional power for a long period of time, did not have a major world impact, next to the impact of the Roman Empire.

Uh, no, you most certainly don't; if you did, you might have recognized that maybe THE ARMY THAT LAID SIEGE TO VIENNA may have made been an issue that didn't relate to the control of the spice routes. Since you're so big on military power, cultural impact, and the like, maybe you'd notice the Ottomans played a massive role at their zenith.

You realize that exact article is where I got the definition of American Exceptionalism from in the first place, right? And that further the article itself points out that the context that you are using it in is wrong?

Why do you brag about your lack of understanding of an article we can all read? It very clearly doesn't say that - it points out that this is in fact the primary thrust of its usage in most usages besides arguably Alexis de Tocqueville's; you're just easy to fool with boilerplate about how 'exceptional isn't better'.

Actually I'm calling them peacekeepers because that's what they're called by the UN. Also I'd love to see what would happen to South Korea if all American troops left.

You are a terrible person for being so happy about a bloodbath you predicted that would 'justify' US troops, and the answer is basically nothing, because South Korea has a modern military, and North does not.

Whether or not China could be more powerful if it didn't play with a hand tied behind its back is irrelevant. It is playing in such a way and is judged accordingly.

...You gigantic ignoramus. Devaluing currency isn't 'tying a hand behind its' back, because the point isn't to win pissing contests with children on the internet about which country is better developed, it's to increase its power.

Maybe, but first, Russia is moving into postindustrial status as well, so I don't really consider that bad (seriously, Russia isn't a horrible place to live; I mean it's not great, next to, say, Finland, but it's not bad); second, regardless of where the USA sits in terms of poverty and income and so on, it is still far, far ahead of China, so the fundamental point remains unchanged.

That's.. the sad thing. It's really not that far ahead. And you're justifying yourself off a country you think is a hellhole, and using that as proof of the USA's enduring awesomeitude.

ArcturusV

2013-01-23, 08:00 PM

Not to mention the Oceania/East Indies ideal has some interesting setting fodder. One, volcanic islands. Those are always pretty interesting places with an odd mishmash of DEATH and ultra fertile zones side by side. Also it has this interesting quality in being a deadly place to outsiders, but also incredibly valuable to outsiders throughout most of history. So you could play up a different sort of colonialism with islands patterned after them. Less Iron Fisted Dominance and something a bit more remote, yet pervasive. Wars being fought over them where both sides die more to the natural dangers and diseases than they actually do to enemy action, etc.

Ethdred

2013-01-23, 08:13 PM

Ethdred

2013-01-23, 08:18 PM

That you are still not getting why these numbers are being brought up and then replay it back into a superiority game again betrays your direction. As far as you have demonstrated, you are an exceptionalist that specifically ignores context.

Do you realise that your entire argument seems to be 'You don't know what things mean. I do, but I'm not going to tell you. You are wrong and will remain so until you admit I am right"? Because it's not a good way to make a point.

Ethdred

2013-01-23, 08:27 PM

Yeah, I hear you there. I kind of wonder what literature and other media would be suitable for comparison to the effect that Tolkien had on Western literature. Perhaps that Things Fall Apart novel mentioned earlier might be of that vein, but that is only an example for one such region.

I'm not actually sure that Tolkien had that big an influence on Western literature as such. I can't be sure, but I don't imagine him being that big in, say, Spain or Italy (at least, not before the films!) In fact, I don't even know of any examples of him being particularly influential in the places he would have been most concerned about - Germany and Scandanavia. His real influence is in pretty much founding a branch of literature which in turn led to a branch of the gaming industry that today generates billions of dollars!

But I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't any equivalent of him in any other language/tradition, if only because I can't imagine anyone else having his unique combination of background, education, outlook, surroundings, influences and opportunity.

What is this "Nollywood" you mention though? Does Africa nowadays have a movie-making center akin to Holly/Bollywood?

Poison_Fish

2013-01-23, 08:28 PM

Do you realise that your entire argument seems to be 'You don't know what things mean. I do, but I'm not going to tell you. You are wrong and will remain so until you admit I am right"? Because it's not a good way to make a point.

Did you miss the previous posts then? Throwing around GDP and income per capita to make a claim about the "superiority" of culture is not going to work. Especially when those measures have issues with them in the first place, on top of specifically ignoring the complexity of how most economies function. I am also under no obligation to educate someone out of their ignorance.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-23, 11:55 PM

I was just thinking about it... and I hadn't specifically included Micronesia, Polynesia and Melanesia (or just Oceania in general) in this! I suppose it's somewhat easy to skip over, as they aren't really part of a continent (always hard with islands far away from a mainland). Do they have anything remarkable or special?

Sheer size of the culture. Polynesians journeyed across the Pacific ocean in tiny little rafts. Well, tiny next to the carracks and man-o'-wars that Europeaners preferred. I don't think any other single people had such a huge range:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Migrations-autronesiennes.png

It might make for fun times for the party if you focus on that for some kind of fetch quest.

As a bonus, it's a great excuse to include the stuff from Stormwrack.

I am also under no obligation to educate someone out of their ignorance.

Maybe, but you don't get to complain if that person continues to be ignorant, then. It's like complaining about the guy who's in office when you didn't vote. You made no attempt to change it, so clearly it didn't bother you that much. Complaining is just...uncouth, at that point.

Kid, y ou shoulda made it less obvious you were cribbing off wikipedia to talk about mexico

Guy, that was all from memory. Yes, some of it is ultimately from Wikipedia. Some of it was from personal research I did into the Aztecs for a mesoamerican campaign setting I was once putting together. Some of it comes from books I've read. Some of it comes from high school, some of it from college, and some of it from God knows where because I didn't exactly memorize where I was getting all these random bits and pieces of trivia from, since the trivia itself was more interesting to me. I'm sorry that I wasn't born born with the knowledge of the world and had to actually go out and find it for myself. Not all of us are omniscient, and not all of us have time to go out and live in Mexico for a year to become experts on its culture, either. You'll have to forgive us if we find it more economical to pick up a book.

I actually could have gone on for a bit longer about the Aztecs, too, but I assumed that you wanted to know what I knew about Mexico as a modern state, and not pre-Colombian Mexico.

Point being that when I was typing that up I did not visit a single site other than this one, nor did I do so beforehand, and though I did go afterwards, that was to fact-check, and all my checked facts were contained in my second post.

Sorry that I'm not living up to the stereotypical example of an ignorant American that knows nothing about anything beyond his home state. But you said I don't know jack about Mexico and I just spent a couple hundred words proving otherwise.

So now, since we're playing this game, I'm gonna contend that you don't know anything about Azerbaijan. Prove me wrong. And like me, go from memory.

Here, I'll get you started: it's a breakaway state from the Soviet Union and was formerly part of the Georgian SSR. Its people are predominantly Turkic.

EDIT: Oops! Got that wrong after a quick fact-check, as that's not the kind of thing you want to be wrong about. Azerbaijan was in fact its own Soviet Socialist Republic as part of the USSR and not, in fact, a part of the Georgian SSR. Like I said, I'm not omniscient.

That's.. the sad thing. It's really not that far ahead. And you're justifying yourself off a country you think is a hellhole, and using that as proof of the USA's enduring awesomeitude.

At least I'm providing actual facts and numbers. If you want to make me change my mind you're going to have to provide some of your own at some point because otherwise, all you're giving me is opinions, not facts.

By the way, as well, I don't think that China is a hellhole. North Korea is a hellhole. Afghanistan is a hellhole. Darfur is a hellhole. China is just mildly unpleasant compared to what I'm used to (which, by the way, isn't much, I only make about $15,000 a year, and the only government subsidy that I get is rent control ensuring that the house I live in costs half as much as it should to rent - I'm basically living proof that it's totally possible to live off of minimum wage in the USA if you play your cards even a little right, let alone that I could probably be getting thousands more dollars from the government if I cared to become a parasite). I said it was 60th on that list, but that's out of, what, 100 or so counted countries? 60th isn't so bad place to be. It's just not as good as 13th.

Besides which, the ease at which a nation can maintain a healthy environment and quality of life for its citizens does not grow in proportion to the size of its population - larger countries are harder to maintain than smaller ones. America is ranked 13th in the quality of life index, yes, but all the countries above it have populations of less than 15 million people, compared to America's 300 million. Of course Ireland has a higher quality of life, the island has less than 5 million people on it, still has a smaller population than prior to its potato famine, and more than half of all people born in Ireland, leave Ireland to live elsewhere, mostly the United States (that's how I got here! My parents moved to America in '86 and I was born in '87).

If we were to take that index and include only countries with populations of, say, 50 million or more, than America is #1 in terms of quality of life.

You are a terrible person for being so happy about a bloodbath you predicted that would 'justify' US troops, and the answer is basically nothing, because South Korea has a modern military, and North does not.

Sorry, that part was supposed to be in blue sarcasm text. That's a mea culpa.

No, I would not be happy if Seoul were utterly destroyed. but I do believe that without an American presence, the North would get cocky enough to attack South Korea, because seriously, have you ever seen some of the stuff they believe? I do honestly believe that they would lose the war - provided China doesn't back their ally up, which, without America around, they might, if for no other reason than to shut the North Koreans up - but, like I said, the North does have enough rockets and artillery pointed at Seoul to level the place inside of 30 minutes. The bloodbath would be huge, and is the primary reason why America and South Korea have never chanced Chinese reprisals in trying to pacify the North - because even if the war could be won, Seoul would be lost, and that is not an acceptable loss of civilian life.

Morph Bark

2013-01-24, 03:46 AM

The first thought that popped into my head is the Balinese water temples. Agriculture being core to survival, and that their irrigation being part of the majority of their architecture is significant, on top of being a fairly advanced water management system of it's time. Water at it's core becomes a conflict, and it could work for an aquatic themed game with some land to still play with (while not just being under the sea (http://youtu.be/jgA2xo0HYrE))

Sounds like a very nice thing to emphasize. Were they on similar level to the Romans with their aquaducts, if you know?

Extraordinarily complex social structures, if I recall correctly. I built a fantasy nation at one point that was a blend of Tongan and Spartan cultures, and the Tongan culture system took a lot of thinking - you inherit status and property from your father, but you inherit your rank in society from your mother.

I guess I better take a look into that then. :smallsmile:

Not to mention the Oceania/East Indies ideal has some interesting setting fodder. One, volcanic islands. Those are always pretty interesting places with an odd mishmash of DEATH and ultra fertile zones side by side. Also it has this interesting quality in being a deadly place to outsiders, but also incredibly valuable to outsiders throughout most of history. So you could play up a different sort of colonialism with islands patterned after them. Less Iron Fisted Dominance and something a bit more remote, yet pervasive. Wars being fought over them where both sides die more to the natural dangers and diseases than they actually do to enemy action, etc.

Volcanic islands of death and life. Check. :smallbiggrin: I had also been thinking of making several islands built upon the backs of giant turtles. They'd roam around a bit and be partially responsible for the spread of certain races across the continents they pass by closely.

It might be interesting to work out the _real_ reason for all those heads on Easter Island! (Or is that more of an idea for a Call of Cthulu game?)

Actually, giving it a horiffic or aberrant reason might work great! Putting in some bits of horror into a setting here and there is never a bad thing. Overall, with mine I'm aiming for mostly a science fantasy feel for about half the world, and a mythic fantasy feel for the other half, with humour and horror splashed around where it may fit.

Also, you forgot to fill in the stuff about Nollywood apparently, so I looked it up. Didn't know Nigeria was so big in movies! I might try to look some up. Nigeria is a pretty mover in West Africa, from what little I know of it.

:smallbiggrin: I'm not just a jingoist...

Anyway, yeah, what Arcturus said in more detail. Though, it's notable that Timbuktu (or Timbuktoo, or Timbuctoo, if you prefer...it's a Czar/Csar/Tzar/Tsar situation, none of the spellings are technically right or wrong) was largely closed to non-Muslims under the Songhai, Tuareg, and Moroccans, to the point where the French offered a 10,000 franc reward to the European who could journey to Timbuktu and return alive with information about it. Not because it was hard to get to, but rather because the Muslims literally killed non-Muslims who tried.

So it's a library-city and a forbidden city all in one!

All the best things. :smallbiggrin: Timbuktu and the history surrounding it certainly sound like a great idea to derive inspiration from!

Sheer size of the culture. Polynesians journeyed across the Pacific ocean in tiny little rafts. Well, tiny next to the carracks and man-o'-wars that Europeaners preferred. I don't think any other single people had such a huge range:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Migrations-autronesiennes.png

It might make for fun times for the party if you focus on that for some kind of fetch quest.

As a bonus, it's a great excuse to include the stuff from Stormwrack.

Dang! I know Polynesians were widespread, but not that much so early on. I guess if I ever need a micronation, I know where I could find it.

And yes, Stormwrack is great. I've DMed two pirate campaigns so far (though one ended up with sailing a desert rather than a sea) and they've been great fun.

I actually wonder how the Polynesians would build war-rafts if they had access to higher levels of technology... :smallamused:

Tanngrisnir

2013-01-24, 05:06 AM

I actually wonder how the Polynesians would build war-rafts if they had access to higher levels of technology... :smallamused:

Just a minor correction but Polynesians didn't have war rafts, they had war canoes.

In terms of Maori culture, three of the most important things to life were your mountain, your river and your waka (canoe). The mountain you lived near was your guiding landmark, allowing you to always know where home and the rest of your iwi (family/tribe) were. The river you lived by was your source of food and sustenance, and was also a symbol of power. Finally, your waka was the waka your tribe arrived in New Zealand on. It was a symbol of unity and togetherness.

At a powhiri (welcoming ceremony) guests and hosts alike would deliver a mihi (greeting type of speech) in which they would identify themselves by naming their mountain, river and waka.

Actually, all of these are still important today and still used in the mihis given at powhiris.

Because of the lifestyle, gods took the form of nature spirits mostly, with Maui being sort of the equivalent of the Greek heroes, a human who regularly interacted with the gods. For instance, it was Maui who stole fire from the volcano Goddess (whose fingernails were fire) and gave it to the common people. He also crafted flax ropes to catch the sun when it was moving too fast through the sky and not allowing crops to grow.

Fishing was also very important, as it was the main way tribes fed themselves. Infact, the Maori myth of how New Zealand came to exist is that Maui was out in his waka one day and spied a great fish. Using his magical fishing hook made from a jawbone he caught the fish and drew it to the surface. The fish became the North Island of New Zealand, and Maui's waka became the South Island.

Being a warrior was of immense importance to the Maori tribes as they would often war with each other. There were (still are) plenty of weapons made from wood and bone that could easily crush a man's skull.

A haka (cultural dance) would be preformed before the combat to show your own strength and to intimidate the enemy (you may have seen the All Blacks rugby team doing theirs). However, hakas were also used to welcome visitors, to celebrate occasions, all manner of things. Each tribe would have its own hakas that they would preform for different occasions.

That is a very small amount of information about some of the major parts of Maori life (both pre-European settlement and today). If you have a specific question I'd be happy to answer it.

Stubbazubba

2013-01-24, 05:42 AM

This thread:
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/32641994.jpg

Morph Bark

2013-01-24, 06:26 AM

Just a minor correction but Polynesians didn't have war rafts, they had war canoes.

Ah! Thank you for that correction. Are you aware if Melanians or Micronesians had war rafts, or are you only familiar with Polynesian culture? (Which is probably logical, considering I see you're from New Zealand, and iirc Polynesians live there and there are quite some differences between the several groupings of 'nesians, but I figured I'd ask anyway. :smallsmile:)

In terms of Maori culture, three of the most important things to life were your mountain, your river and your waka (canoe). The mountain you lived near was your guiding landmark, allowing you to always know where home and the rest of your iwi (family/tribe) were. The river you lived by was your source of food and sustenance, and was also a symbol of power. Finally, your waka was the waka your tribe arrived in New Zealand on. It was a symbol of unity and togetherness.

At a powhiri (welcoming ceremony) guests and hosts alike would deliver a mihi (greeting type of speech) in which they would identify themselves by naming their mountain, river and waka.

Actually, all of these are still important today and still used in the mihis given at powhiris.

I love how you explain it all with the use of their actual words for it. While quite bad at linguistics myself, I love learning about words about other cultures from their languages. What you say here sounds very interesting and useful to what I'm striving for.

Because of the lifestyle, gods took the form of nature spirits mostly, with Maui being sort of the equivalent of the Greek heroes, a human who regularly interacted with the gods. For instance, it was Maui who stole fire from the volcano Goddess (whose fingernails were fire) and gave it to the common people. He also crafted flax ropes to catch the sun when it was moving too fast through the sky and not allowing crops to grow.

Checking up on Maui (I recognized it from somewhere as an island name), he seems to appear in several myths across various Polynesian peoples' stories, so he must've been a prominent figure of sorts in the distant past.

A volcano goddess with fingernails of fire? :smalleek: That sounds awesome, I need to take such details into account for when I make deities and spirits. :smallcool:

That is a very small amount of information about some of the major parts of Maori life (both pre-European settlement and today). If you have a specific question I'd be happy to answer it.

I'll try and think up some questions. It's quite rare to come across someone with more in-depth knowledge of these matters on certain peoples. Thanks for the offer. :smallsmile:

Tanngrisnir

2013-01-24, 06:46 AM

Ah! Thank you for that correction. Are you aware if Melanians or Micronesians had war rafts, or are you only familiar with Polynesian culture? (Which is probably logical, considering I see you're from New Zealand, and iirc Polynesians live there and there are quite some differences between the several groupings of 'nesians, but I figured I'd ask anyway. :smallsmile:)

Unfortunately I'm only really aware of the Polynesian specifics, and even then mostly it is with Maori, as they are the indigenous people of New Zealand. While New Zealand has very strong ties with the rest of the South Pacific nations, with many of them living permanently in New Zealand, within the various Polynesian cultures, such as Tongan and Samoan, there are different customs, languages, beliefs and ceremonies.

My cousin married a Samoan guy so I'm sort of slowly getting more aware of the specifics of their culture, but really not much at all.

I love how you explain it all with the use of their actual words for it. While quite bad at linguistics myself, I love learning about words about other cultures from their languages. What you say here sounds very interesting and useful to what I'm striving for.

My pleasure. I always find getting a bit of the native language helps build an identity when trying to establish a fantasy version of a real culture.

Checking up on Maui (I recognized it from somewhere as an island name), he seems to appear in several myths across various Polynesian peoples' stories, so he must've been a prominent figure of sorts in the distant past.

Yeah, Maui turns up all over the pacific in songs and stories. Reading the legends about him is the best way to get a feel for 'fantasy' pascifika. He's pretty awesome, really.

I'll try and think up some questions. It's quite rare to come across someone with more in-depth knowledge of these matters on certain peoples. Thanks for the offer. :smallsmile:

Again, it's my pleasure.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-24, 09:36 AM

I actually wonder how the Polynesians would build war-rafts if they had access to higher levels of technology...

Well, form follows function, so sadly they'd probably bear a strong resemblance to the warships built by other cultures. They'd be proper boats, too; rafts (canoes too) can only get so big, and if you're building a boat for war you need to follow certain basic designs.

So depending on how advanced you want them, and assuming you want to remain looking like they evolved from the canoes of the Polynesians, they'd probably bear a strong resemblance to galleys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley), even though galleys are not particularly good vessels for transoceanic voyages - the galley was designed for use in the Mediterranean which, while an impressive sea, is kinda' on the small and tame side, and especially in the western end it's actually difficult to find a spot that's out of sight of land, verses the Polynesians who clearly did not mind being out of sight of land for days, weeks, or even months at a time.

Having said that, the galley was in one form or another in use forever. They were the ship of choice in all Mediterranean naval warfare prior to the rise of gunpowder-based weapons as weapons of choice for naval warfare.

Also, important note: they were almost certainly not rowed by slaves. This is just basic logistics in play - if all your rowers are free men, then all your rowers are additional fighting men.

Having said all that, again, a galley isn't really particularly good for transoceanic voyages: again, large ships look the way they do because it makes them better ships. A proper oceanic warship, even one built by a Polynesian-like culture, is going to be sail-driven and strongly resemble a carrack, caravel, or maybe junk.

Ethdred

2013-01-24, 01:17 PM

Also, important note: they were almost certainly not rowed by slaves. This is just basic logistics in play - if all your rowers are free men, then all your rowers are additional fighting men.

While that is a lot truer than Hollywood would have you believe, I know that in Early Modern times, France still condemned prisoners to the galleys for certain crimes (not slaves, but still forced labour). For some reason, I can't now bring to mind whether other Mediterranean countries did that at the same time.

Terraoblivion

2013-01-24, 04:06 PM

Okay, this has become long, so I'm not going to do a lot of quotes, but rather sort things by topic.

Only the US up and vanishing would be crippling for the world
Now, I'm in no way going to deny that the US vanishing would cripple the world, however, thinking that the US is the only country that would have that effect is ludicrous and hinges purely on not knowing the significance of the rest of the world. Based on my knowledge and the perspective of the world I have, with the undeniable European bias that comes from that, two other countries that would entirely cripple the world if they vanished springs to mind. One is China, the other is Germany. However, having said that the world economy is fragile enough that it is hard to even imagine what would happen if a large chunk of the entire world economy up and vanished.

In the case of China, you're seriously underselling both the living standard in the country, their imports to feed industry and luxuries for the inhabitants and their foreign investments.

Basically, China vanishing would collapse the world market for minerals as they develop infrastructure and modernize cities on a massive scale. Several obvious examples of these projects spring to mind, bridging the Yangtze in no less than 16 places with bridges capable of handling modern highways and high speed trains, a program to entirely rebuild the train infrastructure of eastern China for use with high speed bullet trains along with establishing a train infrastructure for the absolutely massive western China and radically expanding the national highway system to be both safer and able to handle the vastly increased load produced by hundred of millions of people buying cars for the first time. Similarly, the Three Gorges Dam stands as an example of a major Chinese infrastructure project that has completed.

On top of this, China needs massive amounts of materials, with steel being an obvious example, for construction in the major cities, along with projects such as building entire new cities for as many as one million people at a time. As an example of this, I can just direct you to the Pudong skyline (http://www.flickriver.com/photos/jbloughphoto/2573138579/) in Shanghai. Every single building in that picture was made within the last fifteen years. The historical Shanghai on the western bank has experienced just as extreme construction work in the same period and that is just one city. Similar frenzies of construction have gone on in every provincial capital, provincial level city and other significant cities, such as Suzhou. That is in addition to all the more ordinary apartment blocks with modern apartments that are going up across the country. This need for material is also reflected in the need for materials for consumer goods such as cars and electronics for the population, the latter of which heavily relies on rare earths obtained in Africa.

Apart from the impact China has on the world market simply by consuming resources, the country has a massive impact on the third world and especially Africa. At the present time, pretty much all actual investments, as opposed to developmental aid, put into Africa comes from China, with especially unstable regions or ones shunned by the west for political reasons experiencing the greatest Chinese dominance in foreign investments. Were Chinese investments to vanish, pretty much the entire economic viability of the continent would disappear with them, as would the capital for the unique African form of modernity. However, Chinese impact on and interaction with the third world doesn't end at investments, it also extends to imports. Cheaper Chinese goods have put products such as electrical appliances and cars within reach of hundreds of millions of people in Africa and the poorer parts of Asia and Latin America, as well as creating marked savings for government bodies and corporations that were previously relying on western products.

So in short, no China would mean a collapse of mineral prices, along with a collapse of the economic underpinnings of the third world and the newfound affluence and access to modern comforts for large segments of the world's poor. That is in addition to the effects on Europe and the US that you have already talked about, such as easy credit and cheap goods. Due to works of how the world market has developed, most electronics are also made at least in part in China making for some rather large gaps in that field should the country vanish.

On the German end, it's pretty simple. Germany is the bedrock of European economy and politics. Should the country vanish so would upwards of 40% of the international trade of every single other continental European country, something the economics of the continent wouldn't be able to withstand and which would lead to a collapse that makes Greece look prosperous. I trust that you can imagine what a full collapse of the largest economy in the world, which EU is if you count it as a whole, would mean along with the economies of a number of non-member states closely tied economically to the union. Politically, the entire structure of the EU is centered on Germany paying subsidies for various industries in other countries, shouldering the blame for any problems on the level of the union and throwing its weight around when gridlocks get too bad. Not just that, the ultimate ideological underpinning of the EU is to keep Germany contained, but has become the means of keeping the many simmering conflicts of the continent in check.

So in short, no Germany, no functional political or economic climate in Europe, which still happens to be the largest economic unit in the world and quite political significant. And that's not even going into how Russia's primary export is natural gas to the place.

Finally, I'd like to point out that a loss of the British or Japanese financial sector or the production of countries like Brazil or France would still be absolutely cataclysmic to world financial markets and cause acute shortages of large numbers of goods. I don't think anybody has the economic skill to predict what kind of scope such an event would have, but it could well still lead to a complete collapse of international trade and extreme political instability across the planet.

The US is keeping the peace around the planet
In a word, the answer to this is: No. In more words, North Korea is fully aware of how outdated and decrepit their military is and how fragile their economy and political situation is and that China isn't their friend. They're also aware that Japan is a military great power and South Korea is only slightly weaker militarily. In short, they have plenty to fear without the Americans in South Korea.

Russia is also fully aware that France, the UK and Germany are major military powers on their own and much more so together and along with the rest of the EU, even before factoring in the fact that they'd still face nuclear annihilation even without the US. They're also quite aware that they're main source of capital and economic activity is selling gas to the west and that they don't have anybody who is more than an ally of convenience. They're also aware that their country isn't exactly terribly stable politically, with immense ethnic tensions that could easily be fanned by a hostile power. Also, they know, like the people of Europe, that the US isn't actually garrisoning the continent, but simply maintain a number of bases for the purpose of logistics in middle eastern operations.

American popular culture dominates the world
Again, in a word, no. Movie is the medium where this is the most true, but even there it fails to compete with India in South Asia, the Indian Ocean and, I believe, in Indonesia as well and with Nigeria in Africa. For other media, the US is far less dominant. For example, the UK is as big in tv internationally as the US, not only matching up completely in the European market in terms of exports and number of viewers, but being the origin and popularizer of a number of popular types, such as most forms of reality tv.

In other areas other countries are similarly influential, such as Korea being the primary source of imported tv in Japan and China and Brazil dominating the Latin American tv market.

Similarly, if you look at music you'll realize that the US is actually not terribly influential in this field. Classic music is still quite popular and that's most frequently based on European compositions and performed by either Europeans or Japanese people, while the somewhat underground field of jazz is almost fully dominated by Japan. When it comes to rock and pop of various kinds, Britain invented it, popularized it and dominated it for two decades before merely becoming important in the field. And that's not even going into local traditions that have a limited regional spread but are incredibly popular within the region they represent, such as schlagermusic in Central, Eastern and Northern Europe, enka in Japan and Tamil pop in India.

Comics is another field where the US is quite weak, with the European and Asian markets being dominated by Italian Disney comics and the distinctive French and Belgian tradition of works like Asterix and Tintin for most of the period since the great culture war over the medium in the early to mid-50s and until the mid-2000s where manga washed over the world. Nothing the US has in the entire medium is more than a ripple in the sea of sales and profits that manga, and to a lesser degree Korean manhwa, has across the globe, with a study from 2008 showing that 70% of all comics read in Germany were manga and the rest were mostly Disney, French works and local ones.

And of course, sports. Professional sports is once again something the British invented and popularized and if you look at turnover, number of viewers and number of professional players globally, soccer is easily the 900-pound gorilla and most of the major sports outside the US being non-American ones such as cricket or handball. In fact, the only place outside North America where an American sport is one of the dominant is baseball in Japan, but that sport is on rapid retreat in the face of the popularity of soccer.

China is just a third world country making stuff for the west
As the information I outlined under the impact of the country vanishing suggests, that isn't quite true. Not just that, looking at China, you'll find massive regional differences. The production that you're thinking about mostly exists in the south, particularly the region around Guangzhou and Shenzhen, though it has spread across Guangdong and several of the neighboring provinces. The west on the other hand is largely poor and accounts for a great deal of the poverty in China, with rural Guizhou being economically most similar to Ghana. On the other hand the eastern seaboard, and especially the Yangtze River Delta, is considerably richer than the country as a whole, with the delta being calculated to have average incomes and life expectancies similar to pre-crisis Italy and Spain, but without the unemployment. That region alone accounts for 105 million people, with the rest of the eastern seaboard being somewhat poorer, but adding several hundreds of people more.

Also worth noting, these massive regional differences and the difference between urban and rural areas is the source of China's high gini coefficient, unlike countries such as the US or the UK where the inequality is mostly class-based. Also, despite the obvious inequality that comes from trying to cram countries with economies like Italy and Ghana into the same country is still lower than what the US has.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-24, 04:38 PM

Now, I'm in no way going to deny that the US vanishing would cripple the world, however, thinking that the US is the only country that would have that effect is ludicrous

I'll be making this quick, as I have to go to work - I said that China disappearing would be terrible. I just also said that America disappearing would be catastrophic. So, America disappearing sucks more than China disappearing, but it still sucks either way.

My point was that no one other country disappearing would have as large an impact, not that only America disappearing would have an impact.

The US is keeping the peace around the planet

The fact is that more than half of all forces around the world that the UN terms "peacekeepers" are American. Now, as to whether or not they actually accomplish anything, that's a matter for debate. Personally I think that a firm threat of force can, in fact, create peace, and the evidence I present is the fact that no nation with nuclear weapons has ever gone to war with another nation in possession of nuclear weapons. This includes India and Pakistan, who at the height of tensions hated each other way more than the USA and USSR ever did.

Now, does this necessarily mean that every nation should be given a few nukes? No, of course not. But I do believe that MAD is a valid peacekeeping technique.

I can and have seen reasonable arguments otherwise, though I do not agree with them. That's not really my point, though. Again, my point was simply that half of all troops that the UN classifies as peacekeeping forces are American, and I think it's foolish to believe that their sudden disappearance (or, more realistically, their rapid withdrawal) would carry with it no negative impacts.

American popular culture dominates the world

Again, it's a question of pervasiveness. American movies are successes across the globe; Chinese or Nigerian or Bollywood movies are not. While given Indian movie X might be the most popular of all time in India, the fact is that Bollywood movies are incapable of achieving commercial success beyond their immediate region, while American movies are not so constrained.

This was only one aspect, though.

As for rock and pop - first off, I think you'll find that it was American blacks who invented rock, though I'll concede that it was the Beatles who gave it a worldwide presence. Again, though, my point is in mobility beyond local regions. When a major American star writes a song, it's not unheard of for the song to become popular or at least listened to across the world. Similar penetration from other countries, on the other hand, is almost unheard of.

I'll concede we suck at sports, though, as well as American comic books not being as marketable beyond US shores as manga is beyond Japanese ones, but these seem like only small marks against the greater whole of pervasiveness.

China is just a third world country making stuff for the west

About this whole inequality between the rich and the poor, I'd like to point out that standards are different in the regions as well. The gap between a rich American and a poor American may be wider than the gap between a rich Chinese person and a poor Chinese person, but at the same time the average poor American is still richer than the average poor Chinese person.

...Chinese person is awkward to type. Is it okay to write down just "Chinese?" I dunno, it doesn't sound right.

Ultimately, though, this whole argument and me bothering with it traces back to one thing: I am actually insulted by the term "USian" and I want RPGuru to stop using it, especially as long as he's going to be on an English-language board where "American" is the correct demonym. I wouldn't go on a Spanish-language board and insist on calling people from Mexico estadosunidense, and I don't think it's much of me to expect the same decency in return.

Terraoblivion

2013-01-24, 05:27 PM

I'll be making this quick, as I have to go to work - I said that China disappearing would be terrible. I just also said that America disappearing would be catastrophic. So, America disappearing sucks more than China disappearing, but it still sucks either way.

My point was that no one other country disappearing would have as large an impact, not that only America disappearing would have an impact.

And my point is that any of those three countries disappearing would be cataclysmic and that any kind of measurement of what would be more cataclysmic is nigh-impossible to make. It's not just an impact, the entire world economy would implode without them and all international politics would have to be redrawn, quite likely violent.

The fact is that more than half of all forces around the world that the UN terms "peacekeepers" are American. Now, as to whether or not they actually accomplish anything, that's a matter for debate. Personally I think that a firm threat of force can, in fact, create peace, and the evidence I present is the fact that no nation with nuclear weapons has ever gone to war with another nation in possession of nuclear weapons. This includes India and Pakistan, who at the height of tensions hated each other way more than the USA and USSR ever did.

Dude, you said North Korea would invade South Korea and Russia would try to take over Eastern Europe again if not for the US. You can't just pretend to have been talking about UN operations, when you demonstrably didn't.

Again, it's a question of pervasiveness. American movies are successes across the globe; Chinese or Nigerian or Bollywood movies are not. While given Indian movie X might be the most popular of all time in India, the fact is that Bollywood movies are incapable of achieving commercial success beyond their immediate region, while American movies are not so constrained.

So Kenya is India's immediate region? Or the South Asian enclaves in the UK? Bollywood is quite successful there as well. Also, it was more of a point that while the US undeniably dominates movies, it does so far less than you think. You'll find that nationally produced movies are quite popular in Japan and Europe as well, often competing favorably with American imports. And once again this is the area where the US is the most dominant.

Also, what standard for commercial success do you use? Because Bollywood movies on dvd are financially viable enough in the US that they're made and readily available on Amazon, just like British social realism, German historical movies, French arthouse, anime movies and a random of assortment of Korean movies I tried checking out just now. It's hardly similar in scope to what more successful American movies grosses overseas, but pretty much everything is guaranteed to turn a profit if released in English.

As for rock and pop - first off, I think you'll find that it was American blacks who invented rock, though I'll concede that it was the Beatles who gave it a worldwide presence. Again, though, my point is in mobility beyond local regions. When a major American star writes a song, it's not unheard of for the song to become popular or at least listened to across the world. Similar penetration from other countries, on the other hand, is almost unheard of.

To make that point, you'd need to include rock and roll, which was quite a minor influence on the British music of the 60s. However, even that is tricky as rock and roll is in no small part a white appropriation, black people predominantly played and listened to various forms of jazz and blues throughout the 50s, and sanitization of the black dominated genre of swing, moving it out of jazz and into its own genre. If you were to try to listen to some Cab Calloway or other swing both the similarities and the way swing was substantially less safe than rock and roll. However rock and roll largely dies out in the late 50s. Modern rock and pop on the other hand develops in the UK and among British bands performing in Germany during the early 60s. While rock and roll is one of the musical inspirations for the genre, so was the British music hall tradition as well as experimentation with the opportunities offered by improvements in amplification technology. From there it spread first to the rest of Europe and then to the US.

You're naming The Beatles, but they're just one of several important bands in establishing the style of music in the 1960s. Do the names The Rolling Stones, The Who and Black Sabbath ring any bells? And in the 70s the tradition is further developed and kept alive by bands such as Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd as well as several of the former or former members of the break-up of those. There were a number of smaller, less famous bands and performers achieving great success too, such as The Kinks and Donovan who were quite popular at the time, but proved less enduring.

As for non-American bands or performers achieving widespread success outside of the British foundations of modern music, well...Let's just say that Queen, U2, Abba, Spice Girls, Aqua and Rammstein want a word with you. As well as quite likely several others that I'm forgetting due to hardly being an expert in music.

I'll concede we suck at sports, though, as well as American comic books not being as marketable beyond US shores as manga is beyond Japanese ones, but these seem like only small marks against the greater whole of pervasiveness.

I was just doing cumulative enumeration of how American culture isn't really anywhere near as dominant as you think. Because ultimately, you're left with movies as the only place where the US is truly dominant and competition is increasing there. I forgot literature, which is a field I admittedly don't care or know much about, but it appears to be incredibly nationally founded with only a few bestsellers achieving noteworthy international success and these are as likely to be Latin American, Japanese or Swedish as American. Do names such as Paulo Coelho, Haruki Murakami or Stieg Larson ring any bells? And of course the absolutely most famous and successful books of the last decades are Harry Potter, which are again British.

Also, you seem to have a misunderstanding about American comic books. They're less marketable than manga in the US too. They're an extremely niche market.

About this whole inequality between the rich and the poor, I'd like to point out that standards are different in the regions as well. The gap between a rich American and a poor American may be wider than the gap between a rich Chinese person and a poor Chinese person, but at the same time the average poor American is still richer than the average poor Chinese person.

But the average poor person in the Yangtze Delta is richer than the average poor person in the US. Also, there is the wider point that thinking about China as one huge sweatshop is hilariously wrong as reading a Lonely Planet guide for Shanghai or Beijing can readily tell you. Also, speaking from personal experience having lived in Shanghai, the city is fully modern and has typical consumer prices as high as the US or Germany, indicating a fairly affluent population. It is also noteworthy for having a highly global, developed food scene featuring the best Indian food I've ever had as well as an abundance of Japanese fast food chains.

Which is incidentally another place where the US doesn't have much impact. Italian, Indian, Thai, Chinese and sushi have in my experience been far easier to find in as diverse places as London, Cuba, rural Denmark, China and Rwanda than any kind of American food, just like international gourmet rankings are dominated by Europe and Japan, with NYC being the only place in the US making a mark.

Ultimately, though, this whole argument and me bothering with it traces back to one thing: I am actually insulted by the term "USian" and I want RPGuru to stop using it, especially as long as he's going to be on an English-language board where "American" is the correct demonym. I wouldn't go on a Spanish-language board and insist on calling people from Mexico estadosunidense, and I don't think it's much of me to expect the same decency in return.

If absolutely correct and official language use matters, you should probably consider using the term African American which is the correct term for Americans of African descent. Or maybe you should just admit that you're angry that your country doesn't get the respect you feel it is due.

Yora

2013-01-24, 05:29 PM

Just a minor correction but Polynesians didn't have war rafts, they had war canoes.
Which scaled up would probably be used similar to scandinavian dragon boats. Allies boats would often be rafted together and pulled alongside enemy boats and boat-rafts to board them. With the low hulls sea battles have often been described as land battles on swimming battlefields.

Unlike greek and roman galleys, dragon boats were build communally by single villages on the beach and not in proto-industrial shipyards. Which makes them much more viable for widely spread out island people who must be able to build and repair their sea vessels without being reliant on a central power or other clans.

However, I think the keel of a dragon boat has to be made from a single beam of timber made from a suitable type of wood. Which in Scandinavia are very plenty, but on small tropical islands may be hard to come by. But that does not have to prevent the construction of such boats, as I would assume New Zealand, Sumatra, and Borneo to have forests with trees that at least grow to sufficient height. If those have wood suitable for shipbuilding I am not sure, but those could easily be added to a fictional world. And these keel beams would be an increadibly valuable trade good that would make those who produce them very rich, but also make the trade rafts that transport them targets for bandits. People might even be highly interested in salvaging damaged ships for their intact keel alone.

Surrealistik

2013-01-24, 05:31 PM

I for one eagerly anticipate the pending and inevitable thread lock.

Morph Bark

2013-01-24, 05:35 PM

Unfortunately I'm only really aware of the Polynesian specifics, and even then mostly it is with Maori, as they are the indigenous people of New Zealand. While New Zealand has very strong ties with the rest of the South Pacific nations, with many of them living permanently in New Zealand, within the various Polynesian cultures, such as Tongan and Samoan, there are different customs, languages, beliefs and ceremonies.

My cousin married a Samoan guy so I'm sort of slowly getting more aware of the specifics of their culture, but really not much at all.

Perhaps I'll ask a friend of mine who lives in Florida. While American-born himself, his father and grandfather were born and raised in Samoa, so he might know a thing or two as well.

My pleasure. I always find getting a bit of the native language helps build an identity when trying to establish a fantasy version of a real culture.

Definitely. I enjoy creating a vibrant, living world that feels real, and culture is a major part of that, and language is a major part of culture.

Hmmm... do you happen to know much about Polynesian (or just Maori even) weaponry? Did they ever make protective gear of sorts, like armor or shields? Did they possess anything made of metal, or did they have specific choices in materials for weapon-making, like how obsidian was sometimes used for weapons by the Central American Indians? (Is there even a general term referring to Aztecs and Mayans and the other tribes in that area during the Pre-Colombian times? Not a question specifically aimed at you of course, Tanngrisnir. Nice name, by the way.)

(I'm using past tense here primarily to cover a greater amount of time: the entirety of the past. Plus, I have no idea if any of this is still in practice today.)

While that is a lot truer than Hollywood would have you believe, I know that in Early Modern times, France still condemned prisoners to the galleys for certain crimes (not slaves, but still forced labour). For some reason, I can't now bring to mind whether other Mediterranean countries did that at the same time.

Most civilizations in the West have seemingly always used people who were still loyal to the people they rowed for as rowers on their warships. The Ancient Greeks of Athens used lower class people, and thanks to them they won the war against Persia, which in turn led to the lower classes getting more democratic power. In the Middle Ages there were some battles I recall where they mostly used slaves. I recall a specific one, might've been the battle at Lepanto, where they were losing against their Muslim opponents and decided to loosen their own slaves from their bonds. The slaves, who were Christian, joined their side, knowing they might be freed if they won. The Muslim admiral then decided to do the same with their slaves, who promptly turned on their masters, as the slaves were Christians. It's a great story.

In the modern day, countries might've started using prisoners of their own countries, as nationalism became a thing and the prisoners might be of help somehow. I dunno, I never really looked into that. Just doesn't seem smart to use your enemies to do important work for you.

Again, it's a question of pervasiveness. American movies are successes across the globe; Chinese or Nigerian or Bollywood movies are not. While given Indian movie X might be the most popular of all time in India, the fact is that Bollywood movies are incapable of achieving commercial success beyond their immediate region, while American movies are not so constrained.

This was only one aspect, though.

As for rock and pop - first off, I think you'll find that it was American blacks who invented rock, though I'll concede that it was the Beatles who gave it a worldwide presence. Again, though, my point is in mobility beyond local regions. When a major American star writes a song, it's not unheard of for the song to become popular or at least listened to across the world. Similar penetration from other countries, on the other hand, is almost unheard of.

I'll concede we suck at sports, though, as well as American comic books not being as marketable beyond US shores as manga is beyond Japanese ones, but these seem like only small marks against the greater whole of pervasiveness.

Considering I can be a bit of a media nut, I'll take a shot at this bit of your post, and only this bit.

Is "commercial success" really the one and only thing needed to spread it's culture? I would think it more prudent that it reaches a great amount of people and that those people adopt the practices in those movies. In that regard, Bollywood and Hong Kong movies are certainly just as, if not more pervasive, due to reaching an immense amount of people. And if it weren't for Hong Kong movies, the international martial arts scene would look much, much different.

On the whole of music and movies, the thing is that they're very language-dependant. British English is spoken many times more than American English (Australian English is it's own breed, but has more in common with British English than American English does with either). British television is also much more pervasive globally than American television, except for a few channels like Discovery Channel and MTV, and they usually air a lot of programs from the countries they air them at as well. Many British movies outsell American ones as well, even though America has 315 million inhabitants and the United Kingdom 63 million, so only a fifth of the amount of people who could be making movies or music. Currently, most big pop artists I can think of are either Canadian or British. If I'd have to name American artists, I'd have to branch out to metal and rock, and metal-wise Europe's got America beat.

Anyway, while we're on the subject of music, what kinds of music are popular in South America, Africa, India (because the Far East is more obvious with all their pop) and Australia*/Oceania?

*Not sure if I should include Australia in the lineup for that question, considering the taste is music probably doesn't differ much from the other Western countries. ...then again, taste in music is still very variable over here, so I guess I'll shut up now before my foot ends up in my throat.

EDIT:

Which scaled up would probably be used similar to scandinavian dragon boats. Allies boats would often be rafted together and pulled alongside enemy boats and boat-rafts to board them. With the low hulls sea battles have often been described as land battles on swimming battlefields.

Unlike greek and roman galleys, dragon boats were build communally by single villages on the beach and not in proto-industrial shipyards. Which makes them much more viable for widely spread out island people who must be able to build and repair their sea vessels without being reliant on a central power or other clans.

However, I think the keel of a dragon boat has to be made from a single beam of timber made from a suitable type of wood. Which in Scandinavia are very plenty, but on small tropical islands may be hard to come by. But that does not have to prevent the construction of such boats, as I would assume New Zealand, Sumatra, and Borneo to have forests with trees that at least grow to sufficient height. If those have wood suitable for shipbuilding I am not sure, but those could easily be added to a fictional world. And these keel beams would be an increadibly valuable trade good that would make those who produce them very rich, but also make the trade rafts that transport them targets for bandits. People might even be highly interested in salvaging damaged ships for their intact keel alone.

Now that sounds awesome! Gives a dash of tropical Viking to the pseudo-Polynesians! It sounds like a great idea. I'd been trying to think of how a raft could be developed for war and made bigger without necessarily turning out like typical galleys and such. This sounds perfect. :smallbiggrin:

I for one eagerly anticipate the pending and inevitable thread lock.

Thank you for the spam opinion, but I for one don't. While there've been people going off-topic on things that shouldn't be discussed here, the thread's otherwise been great so far. I'm learning stuff and getting ideas all up the wazoo.

Tanngrisnir

2013-01-24, 07:23 PM

Hmmm... do you happen to know much about Polynesian (or just Maori even) weaponry? Did they ever make protective gear of sorts, like armor or shields? Did they possess anything made of metal, or did they have specific choices in materials for weapon-making, like how obsidian was sometimes used for weapons by the Central American Indians?

Due to the Maori not mining the earth (a mixture of technological lack and respect of the earth tied in with the culture) Maori weapons were made from wood, stones easy found lying around and animal/human bone. They relied on strength and power to crush the bones and tear the flesh of their enemies.

The two most prevalent weapons were the mere (pronounced meh-re) and the taiaha (pronounced tie-a-ha). The mere was a form of one handed patu (club, pronounced pa-too) usually made from wood, bone or stone. The taiaha was a wooden spear about 5 or 6 feet long, with the handle weighted in order to deliver hard strikes as well as pierce flesh. It wasn't really thrown, the Maori didn't go for ranged combat. It was all up close and brutal. As well as being used for war, weapons were used to designate significance, such as being a chieftain.

A Google search of those names will provide you with plenty of different pictures of them so you can get a good idea of what they look like.

Actually, there is a great episode of Deadliest Warrior that pits Maori weapons against Shaolin Monks. It goes into detail about two much lesser used and known weapons, the Shark Toothed Club and the Sting Ray Spear. I'd give the Maori names for them, but I don't think they actually have Maori names. Or if they did, we've forgotten them. If you can get your hand on the episode, it offers plenty of insight into the weapons and what they meant to the men who wielded them.

(I'm using past tense here primarily to cover a greater amount of time: the entirety of the past. Plus, I have no idea if any of this is still in practice today.)

While not used for war anymore, the weapons are still very culturally significant to both the Maori and the New Zealand Europeans (White New Zealanders, known as Pakeha (pronounced pa-key-ha) in Te Reo Maori, the Maori language). We use them as gifts of respect, and the various Maori tribes have their own weapons of significance that are used in the ceremonies of today, such as at funerals, powhiris etc.

(Nice name, by the way.)

Thanks :smallsmile:

Anyway, while we're on the subject of music, what kinds of music are popular in South America, Africa, India (because the Far East is more obvious with all their pop) and Australia*/Oceania?

For Australia/New Zealand the music taste is pretty much what you'd expect from western cultures. Rock, pop, hip hop, country, all just a big mix of everything really. With New Zealand and the Oceanic cultures, however, there is quite a strong following for Polynesian styled rap/hip hop. Also, drum and bass is huge in New Zealand.

ArcturusV

2013-01-24, 07:27 PM

Maori made good use though of Shark Teeth and Jade, if I remember correctly. Thus you have clubs and the like lined with Shark Teeth and Jade cutting blades (More knife sized/dagger sized than sword like). Their spears would use things like animal quills to create a natural "Barbed" effect that was hard to pull out of a target without doing a lot more damage than was inflicted coming in.

INDYSTAR188

2013-01-24, 09:59 PM

This thread:
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/32641994.jpg

1.) In the spirit of this awesome post I would like to respectfully request that we all refer to America as 'Murica for the duration of this silly thread derailing argument.

2.) The amount of 'one-upping' and all-around unfriendliness between four folks in this thread is pretty disappointing. The fact is, big or small, all countries and all peoples around the world are equally important. We're all impressed with your PhD level of knowledge of world history, culture, economics, and stereotypes.

3.) I had the good fortune to be stationed in Hawaii from 2008-2011 (although I was deployed for half of that time) and Oceania makes me think of great, expansive exploration coupled with a lot of war, and also for some reason I can't really put a finger on, the Native Hawaiian's I had met reminded me a lot of the Native Americans.

4.) What is a USian?

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-24, 11:38 PM

1.) In the spirit of this awesome post I would like to respectfully request that we all refer to America as 'Murica for the duration of this silly thread derailing argument.

If we can refer to Mexico as Sombreroland, then sure, I'm okay with this. Turnabout should be fair play.

The fact is, big or small, all countries and all peoples around the world are equally important.

No. Not every group of people has had an equal impact on world history or even their own regional history. This isn't a racist statement, it's a fact. Equality is for law and relations: your race or culture should not be a factor when you find yourself on trial for something; and "because we're white" or "because they're black" isn't a justification for going around and conquering people.

But not every nation or culture or state is equal in terms of absolute world impact, in terms of the effect they have on other nations or cultures or states. Would Trinidad and Tobago suddenly disappearing be tragic? Yes, it would be. Several thousands of people disappearing off the face of the Earth for no reason would be terrible and not something I wish on any nation - even North Korea, which, if you've read any of my previous posts, you'll know I'm not a huge fan of. Having said that, the total world impact would be negligible. Indeed, I'm not even certain if Trinidad and Tobago's disapearance would cause much in the way of regional ripples

But nations like America, Russia, China, etc., would have massive worldwide repercussions if they were to disappear.

So, sorry, but no. There is a definite, if contested, hierarchy of importance.

3.) I had the good fortune to be stationed in Hawaii from 2008-2011 (although I was deployed for half of that time) and Oceania makes me think of great, expansive exploration coupled with a lot of war, and also for some reason I can't really put a finger on, the Native Hawaiian's I had met reminded me a lot of the Native Americans.

Is Hawaii considered a part of Oceania?

Anyway, yeah. Sheer size of the Pacific ocean coupled with the fact that the Polynesians were nevertheless able to traverse it in little wooden canoes. Toss them into a ridiculous world of magic like your typical D&D world, and it'd be awesome.

Especially the Stormwrack in play. I wanna play a hadozee!

4.) What is a USian?

As far as I'm concerned it's a synonym for gringo.

Basically the short version is that a substantial minority of people, largely from central America and South America, refer to Americans by the demonym of estadosunidense - basically, "united statesian." The idea is that the country cannot be referred to as "America" because "America" refers to the entirety of the two continents and not to any one single nation in it.

Note that I specify elsewhere in the Americas because in Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia, people from the United States are still referred to as Americans (or whatever the equivalent word in the local language is).

Basically, the idea is that "Columbians are Americans too because they're from South America. People from the United States can't call themselves Americans because it implies that people from Columbians are not also Americans."

The counterpoints I have are three.

1) The USA is, in fact, called America. It happens to share the name with the continents, but the name of the land itself is, in fact, America, much as the name of the land north of us is Canada and the name of the land south is Mexico. Basically we're being told that we're not named what we're named - it's the rough equivalent of going up to someone named John and telling them that they can't call themselves John because there's other people named John and it's not fair to them.

2) I would actually be fine with this - if the same logic was applied to Mexico. Mexico's proper name is, after all, Los Estados Mexicanos - the United Mexican States. Unfortunately the logic breaks down here anyway - we don't want to call Americans "Americans" because you might confuse it with the continent, but calling Americans estadosunidense might end up confusing us with Mexicans and any other nations with "United States" in their name. So what are we supposed to be called? "Ofians?"

3) It's accepted fact that the demonym for a citizen of the United States of America is "American." It's been this way for literally centuries. Now, as pointed out, this is an exception south of the border, where estadosunidense is more common, and I can get that. However, on English language boards like this, the phrase "USian" is used for one purpose and one purpose only: Baiting Americans, and as a form of insult.

Morph Bark

2013-01-25, 05:36 AM

Due to the Maori not mining the earth (a mixture of technological lack and respect of the earth tied in with the culture) Maori weapons were made from wood, stones easy found lying around and animal/human bone. They relied on strength and power to crush the bones and tear the flesh of their enemies.

Oh my. Did they primarily use the bones of their own people, or those of slain enemies, in the cases that they used human bones for their weapons?

Maori made good use though of Shark Teeth and Jade, if I remember correctly. Thus you have clubs and the like lined with Shark Teeth and Jade cutting blades (More knife sized/dagger sized than sword like). Their spears would use things like animal quills to create a natural "Barbed" effect that was hard to pull out of a target without doing a lot more damage than was inflicted coming in.

Jade, huh? Is jade that prevalent as a resource on Polynesian islands?

ArcturusV

2013-01-25, 09:24 AM

To the best of my knowledge it falls into the Uncommon but not Ultra Rare category. Though I don't remember any particular stand out facts that I can throw out there for it.

Of course since this is fantasy and adventure fare you might want to go with something like that Rokugan angle and actually have a reason they use Jade other than the obvious heft and toughness of it. It would give you a reason to actually use some of those spells that are often ignored like Jade Strike and Jade Aura from their sourcebook. Maybe it's particularly effective against monsters spawned in the heart of the jungles, or repelling the local aquatic/amphibious monsters.

Morph Bark

2013-01-25, 09:44 AM

Hmmm... thinking about it, I could have jade be used as a form of currency, similar to how it is in Exalted.

I've heard that island people tend to use seashells as a form of currency the most though. Is such the case in Polynesia?

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-25, 11:38 AM

I've heard that island people tend to use seashells as a form of currency the most though. Is such the case in Polynesia?

I think a rough barter system is probably more likely, though sea shells might still be considered valuable within the context of such a system, or maybe even a standard. I don't think they'd be outright "currency," though.

RPGuru1331

2013-01-25, 12:22 PM

Ultimately, though, this whole argument and me bothering with it traces back to one thing: I am actually insulted by the term "USian" and I want RPGuru to stop using it, especially as long as he's going to be on an English-language board where "American" is the correct demonym.

Well, a lot of people are insulted by the ignorance of USians in insisting they're the sole pillar holding the world up in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and by USians treating the rest of the world as a speed bump or curiosity rather than regions of the world that have an impact and a history, both of which affect the USA and upon which the USA is not the shining center of the universe, even in the predominantly brief period it is a 900 pound gorilla that can't be ignored; at best we're even. Given that it's pretty clear that this really stems from not having your ego stroked, rather than anything legitimate, we're not even either.

Which, incidentally, is the actual root of this conversation - you being an ignoramus, and projecting that on other continents worth of people, and then when this was pointed out, going well out of your way to flaunt your ignorance.

If we can refer to Mexico as Sombreroland, then sure, I'm okay with this. Turnabout should be fair play.

Man, someone here doesn't grasp power differentials. Not that I'm Mexican (Meaning it isn't even turnabout - it's pretty funny you'd assume I'm Mexican -Is that just the only plausible reason someone could care about South America to you?), but if I were, the anger at mistreatment at US hands (which is by no means limited to you) is categorically unlike being called USian - even if USian were a slur (and it isn't - it's just not acknowledging you in your 'rightful' place as overlord of two continents), you'd basically (if not entirely) only deal with it from me - when I get bored of dealing with you, or vice versa, you'll likely never see it again. Unlike that, I can pretty safely count on dealing with a plethora of ignorant USians who say stupid things about Mexico (which, let's be clear, I'm not - but it's not like they'll be be saying any fewer ignorant things about Mexico just because I'm not Mexican). And they'd be doing so from a position of greater societal power, because other countries, as well as other USians, listen more to USians than they do Mexicans. Power differentials matter unless you're just looking for an excuse to be an ignorant nob.

But not every nation or culture or state is equal in terms of absolute world impact, in terms of the effect they have on other nations or cultures or states
Hehehe. That's funny, from the guy who tries to pretend that the only thing that ever mattered is the USA and Rome, while two empires that had almost equally global effects (moreso, really, for China and Rome), and for far longer than the US seems set to, were treated as irrelevant 'regional powers'.

As far as I'm concerned it's a synonym for gringo.

Why ruin your Wrong streak now? Maybe you'll get an entry in the Guinness Book if you go far enough!

1) The USA is, in fact, called America.
Unless you call it the USA.

2) I would actually be fine with this - if the same logic was applied to Mexico
Last I checked, Mexico is not the word for the continent, and Mexicans are not in the habit of treating themselves as the only ones (or even the only ones of consequence) on the Americas. If Mexicans were in the habit of treating themselves as the only one on the continental landmass though, and expected my worship for it, you bet I'd come up with something deflating for them too though. It is the same logic, in other words. You're just sticking to the surface rather than looking at what actually matters - the why. Rather like your grasp of history, I suppose.

3) It's accepted fact that the demonym for a citizen of the United States of America is "American."
And if I have my druthers, the accepted demonym will become USian! Not holding my breath, but yanno, be the change you want and all that.

At least I'm providing actual facts and numbers. If you want to make me change my mind you're going to have to provide some of your own at some point because otherwise, all you're giving me is opinions, not facts.

Uh, per capita GDP of any country with a high GINI Coefficient is a really bad way to measure anything of consequence - this should be blatantly obvious, because per capita GDP is a mathematical mean. If values aren't roughly equally distributed (which indeed, they are not, in the USA or China), then the mathematical mean...

(⌐■_■)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
( •_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

...is meaningless.

Additionally, if you wanted to discuss facts, rather than opinions, what was all that nonsense about 'regional powers', 'zeitgeist', and the irrelevancy of South America earlier? Or the 'haha, south korea is screwed without the US' crack? (Which, seriously, how obvious can you get that you just didn't know what you were talking about? And for the record, nobody past the age of 8 was tricked by 'I was being sarcastic')

4.) What is a USian?

A US Citizen that isn't addressed as though they have a claim to being the only nationality on two continents.

I've heard that island people tend to use seashells as a form of currency the most though. Is such the case in Polynesia?

No. Papua New Guinea did, however. From what I know, Jade was considered to have spiritual properties, but not as a weapon, in at least some oceanian tribes. I believe jade tools were a medium for communication, but it's been a while so I won't be surprised if I'm misremembering that.

ArcturusV

2013-01-25, 12:30 PM

Seashells kind of strike me as an odd idea for Oceanic Currency. I only say odd because of the relative abundance and whims of fate which may play into the value of it. A bunch of shells wash up on shore one day after a storm? Bam, you just devalued every shell on the island.

I'd go with a simple barter system, or an economic free system for most of them. Players MAY think they are a pain in the ass. But other players like barter systems. It all depends on your particular group on the mileage you get out of it. I've known just as many groups who gripe about not having a standard currency and thus being able to remain liquid no matter where they go, as groups who had fun figuring out, "Well, we just looted this place and got ____... we could go back to ____ town or _____ village, but if we go to the village we can probably get more for this because it'd be rarer."

Of course a free economic system works best with less advanced/smaller tribes. And players tend not to like it as it makes a poor situation for Loot Exchanging. But it does make for a good halfway stop between home base and adventure location to know that there is a place where anything is more or less freely given long as you contribute some yourself.

RPGuru1331

2013-01-25, 12:37 PM

It's not like they accepted every single possible shell as currency, any more than iron pyrite or sulphur counts as gold.

Morph Bark

2013-01-25, 12:50 PM

I think a rough barter system is probably more likely, though sea shells might still be considered valuable within the context of such a system, or maybe even a standard. I don't think they'd be outright "currency," though.

Seashells kind of strike me as an odd idea for Oceanic Currency. I only say odd because of the relative abundance and whims of fate which may play into the value of it. A bunch of shells wash up on shore one day after a storm? Bam, you just devalued every shell on the island.

Hmm, yeah, I guess you're right. Going with jade or just bartering sounds better. Looking at jade, there appear to be various colours of varying rarity (ordinary pale green being most common, then blue and lavender, with translucent emerald green being the rarest). They could be the rough equivalents of gold, silver and copper.

I'd go with a simple barter system, or an economic free system for most of them. Players MAY think they are a pain in the ass. But other players like barter systems. It all depends on your particular group on the mileage you get out of it. I've known just as many groups who gripe about not having a standard currency and thus being able to remain liquid no matter where they go, as groups who had fun figuring out, "Well, we just looted this place and got ____... we could go back to ____ town or _____ village, but if we go to the village we can probably get more for this because it'd be rarer."

Of course a free economic system works best with less advanced/smaller tribes. And players tend not to like it as it makes a poor situation for Loot Exchanging. But it does make for a good halfway stop between home base and adventure location to know that there is a place where anything is more or less freely given long as you contribute some yourself.

I was thinking of giving each country a few "export" and "import" products, which are slightly cheaper or more expensive there. It could make for a great trade-focused campaign, while still keeping it simple enough on the economics to not give headaches with calculations about the minor consequences and a lot of supply and demand analyses.

For instance, the South America-equivalent obviously will have access to a lot of silver, in pseudo-Africa there'll be the most gold and diamonds, and so on. It gets harder to think of something when it comes to produced goods though.

ArcturusV

2013-01-25, 01:05 PM

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-25, 01:41 PM

SIDE NOTE:
I just learned that originally, America was actually going to call itself Columbia. However, Gran Columbia already existed. Since there was no nation calling itself America at the time, and as the continent is North America, not just "America," we didn't think Canada or Mexico would mind, since they weren't themselves doing anything with the name.

Which, incidentally, is the actual root of this conversation - you being an ignoramus, and projecting that on other continents worth of people, and then when this was pointed out, going well out of your way to flaunt your ignorance.

As soon as you can point out when I said that the USA is the only country that matters, you can feel free to keep on insulting. I've been claiming that it was most important, not the only important one. Like I've kept saying, I think that the US depends on China for manufactured goods. We also depend on the Middle East for oil, and the majority of our trade is with Canada, Mexico, and the rest of the Americas.

I don't think that America is the tentpole that holds up the world. I think it is a tentpole, and I think it is the largest, but if any of them went it'd suck royally for everyone.

Not that I'm Mexican

Didn't think you were. However, Mexico is the other nation I know of off the top of my head that I know of which uses "United States" in its name. Since you, in your quest to remove ambiguity from the world, don't want American to be used to refer to the USA since it is ambiguous next to the whole of the continent, we should not be using "USian," either, since that is ambiguous next to Mexico.

So as long as someone (don't worry, I remember that it wasn't you) is petitioning to refer to America as 'Murrica to avoid ambiguity, I'm petitioning to refer to Mexico as Sombreroland to cement the distinction firmly, and as long as the new name for 'Murrica is going to be a not-veiled-in-the-slightest insult, the new name for Mexico should be as well. Because turnabout is fair play and Meixco is currently the best and only target for turnabout, unless you'd like to offer up your own country in its place?

I'll also accept Sombraña, though; I haven't used the tilde enough since Spanish class back in middle school.

ignorant nob.

Ignoramous, ignorant nob, USian...you're just a fun-filled and pleasant person, aren't you?

Why ruin your Wrong streak now? Maybe you'll get an entry in the Guinness Book if you go far enough!

Ugh. I know it is not literally a synonym for gringo. My point was that I interpret it as being just as insulting as gringo.

Like I said, telling Americans that we're not Americans due to the continent being called America, is like going up to someone named John and telling them that they can't use the name John because there's someone else who's much larger using the name John.

Yes, the continent is called America. But the specific regions of the continent (and the Pacific) that the USA occupies is also called America. As far as I'm concerned the rest of the Americas - by which I mean people south of the border, because to my knowledge Canadians in general do not make a habit of doing this - are being deliberately obtuse. When traveling in France, if a French person asks you "where are you from," no one responds with "I'm from the Americas." They say "I'm from Columbia" or "I'm from Brazil" or "I'm from Haiti," because that's not ambiguous. And when an American responds with "I'm from America," the French person knows that the responder means the USA and would never confuse it with Columbia or Brazil or Haiti.

Unless you call it the USA.

The United States of America is the full, official name of the nation. In conversation the term "United States" or "America" can be used interchangeably. By the overwhelming majority of the planet.

Last I checked, Mexico is not the word for the continent,

But nor is it entirely accurate. "Mexico," after all, should properly refer only to the location in the Valley of Mexico. What about the Yucatán peninsula? The Sierra Madres? Baja California never contained any Mexica people - it's about as far away from the Valley of Mexico as Greece is from France. Try calling Greeks "French," see how far that gets you.

Besides, referring to the US solely as "The United States" is misleading anyway, since America consists of other territories, protectorates, and dependencies that are not themselves states, such as Puerto Rico (SO CLOSE TO STATEHOOD! GAH! I WANT A FIFTY-FIRST STAR!!!*), Guam, the US Virgin Islands...

Additionally, if you wanted to discuss facts, rather than opinions, what was all that nonsense about 'regional powers', 'zeitgeist', and the irrelevancy of South America earlier? Or the 'haha, south korea is screwed without the US' crack? (Which, seriously, how obvious can you get that you just didn't know what you were talking about? And for the record, nobody past the age of 8 was tricked by 'I was being sarcastic')

But I was being sarcastic. Sorry, but again, I'm not a racist, and I don't want any group of people to be wiped out. Certain cultures, sure, or at least cultural traits - the world is better off without the Aztec culture of warfare and human sacrifice, without the Spartans bashing "imperfect" baby's skulls in, without Chinese foot binding and without American chattel slavery. And again, if you would care to re-read what I posted, I outright stated that South Korea would win the war with North Korea. However, the city of Seoul is screwed in the event of a war, which I do honestly believe the presence of American troops and the threat of American retaliation helps to prevent. You can keep the peace with a gun. It's not preferable to simply having a stable border, but it can work, if your gun is big enough.

As for South America, I didn't say it was irrelevant or even unimportant, I said it made no impact on the worldwide zeitgeist, and that its importance is not as great as the importance of America. Stop building straw men.

As for opinions: the relative amount of impact a culture has made upon the world isn't formed from opinions, it's formed from the examination of the facts. If I might crib an argument from a bad movie that I nevertheless like: we can say, with certainty, that America leaves larger impacts on the world's public consciousness, than Trinidad and Tobago does. So having established that the idea of larger and smaller impacts is sound in principle, all we're left to do is argue over the terms.

---------------------------
*Sorry, this is a passion of mine, explained here:

Oops! I forgot that it was 2013 now!

Quick history. Puerto Rico has been a US possession since the Spanish-American War in 1898, from which America gained control of the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and I think some other localities that I forget at the moment. The Philippines were granted independence eventually (and not without bloodshed, admittedly), Cuba, of course, also gained independence via Castro and revolution. However, Puerto Rico has willingly chosen to stay associated with the USA (see below for more, but the short version is that right now, the drive for Puerto Rican independence is the highest it's ever been - at 5.5% of the population), and indeed in the late 40s there was a plan to turn it into a US state alongside Alaska and Hawaii, but it fell through.

Puerto Rico is kind of in an awkward position. Technically speaking, it's classed as a Commonwealth. It is allowed to conduct its own internal affairs for the most part, but America runs its foreign affairs. Citizens of Puerto Rico are full US citizens, up to and including being considered "nautral born" and therefore allowed to run for President of the United States; however Puerto Rico itself does not itself get to vote in either the popular vote, nor the Electoral Collage. Puerto Ricans do pay taxes despite the common myth. They also send an observer to Congress but do not get to vote in it.

Basically, they are, for all intents and purposes, a colony, and the UN has never been very happy with the US over this fact. Here's the trick: neither has the US. One of the few things that both Democrats and Republicans can agree upon is that the status of Puerto Rico needs to change. When asked during the '12 election campaign, Obama said that he favors Puerto Rican statehood. In response, the Republican flew Mitt Romney to San Juan to make it clear that the Republicans also favor statehood. However, being a democratic society, we will not force statehood on them. If they want independence, we'll give it. If they want to become a free association, like Guam, we'll allow it. And if they want statehood, we'll welcome them with open arms.

Four times - in 1967, 1993, 1998, and 2012 - Puerto Ricans were given a non-binding plebiscite RE: the question of its status, basically asking them if they want to remain a Commonwealth, become a State, become a territory in free association (like Guam), or "Other." In '67, '93, and '98, the Puerto Ricans voted to retain Commonwealth status, but it was by a slim majority in '67 - about 60% - and in '93 and it wasn't even with a majority, just a plurality, while '98 gave us only a very slim majority. Each time, the drive to statehood has been growing larger, too - 39% in '67, 46% in '93 and '98.

In the 2012 plebiscite, the questions were arrange differently. Puerto Ricans were asked two questions.
1) Do you want to remain a Commonwealth? (Y/N)
2) If no, what status for Puerto Rico do you favor: Statehood, Independence, Free Association, or Other?

In this plebiscite, for the first time, a minority of Puerto Ricans voted for continuation of Commonwealth status on question 1: 46%. Of the remaining choices, the majority voted for Statehood: 61%.

Now, me, I would have taken that and run to Congress and rushed the statehood process through. Unfortunately, it was a) non-binding, and b) there's a debate in Puerto Rico as to whether or not the plebiscite was legitimate, due to the tricky wording and the division of the question into two parts. The point being that nothing is going to come of it as a result.

Point being that on Election Day I didn't care that Obama won despite voting for him, because whether he won or lost America was going to end up with somebody as President. But it's not every day we get a new state, and I was so hopeful that we'd end up with one. I want a fifty-first star on the flag, damn it! I want the UN to stop giving us dirty looks for Puerto Rico being a colony - they are choosing to remain such! It's not our fault!

(For the record, "Independence" has always been a tiny, tiny proportion of the vote - the '12 plebiscite was the highest it's ever been, at 5.5%. Having said that, if the Puerto Ricans voted for independence, America would start the process and wish them all the luck in the world. Like I said, Congress simply doesn't want Puerto Rico to be a commonwealth anymore so that the UN can stop giving us dirty looks, but it doesn't particularly care what Puerto Rico chooses to do, we just want it to choose something other than commonwealth, but unfortunately, being a democratic society, we refuse to take the choice of remaining such away from them)

...so, anyway, yeah. That's the history lesson: Sometimes colonies like being colonies even when their owner doesn't want them to be a colony anymore.

...

I want a fifty-first star on the flag...

TheThan

2013-01-25, 01:50 PM

Ethdred

2013-01-25, 03:20 PM

To make that point, you'd need to include rock and roll, which was quite a minor influence on the British music of the 60s. However, even that is tricky as rock and roll is in no small part a white appropriation, black people predominantly played and listened to various forms of jazz and blues throughout the 50s, and sanitization of the black dominated genre of swing, moving it out of jazz and into its own genre. If you were to try to listen to some Cab Calloway or other swing both the similarities and the way swing was substantially less safe than rock and roll. However rock and roll largely dies out in the late 50s. Modern rock and pop on the other hand develops in the UK and among British bands performing in Germany during the early 60s. While rock and roll is one of the musical inspirations for the genre, so was the British music hall tradition as well as experimentation with the opportunities offered by improvements in amplification technology. From there it spread first to the rest of Europe and then to the US.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff from, but you're very mistaken. Rock 'n' roll was a major influence on British music in the 60s. Rock didn't exist until the late 60s. The Beatles were very definitely a rock 'n' roll band when they started out, and for many years of their career. What do you think they were playing in the Hamburg clubs? It certainly wasbn't whimsical British music hall. Yes, they definitely broadened the palette of popular music in their later career, but when they started they were very heavily American influenced (including skiffle, a much less well known genre these days, but very popular in the late 50s/ early 60s in Britain). Even more important on the bands that became the British Invasion, and hence probably the most influential bands of the time, was the blues, which was very definitely a black American musical form. Most of the British artists were very happy to acknowledge their debt to the old blues players, and in many cases helped revived careers for their heroes.

You seem to have totally misunderstood what was happening in the German clubs. The experimentation and development of music by British groups happened long after that period was over. And most of it was driven by US influences, although the Brits did a very good job of repackaging these influences and selling them back to the US. By the late 60s it was very much a two-way street - a good example is the career of Jimi Hendrix, an American who came to Britain to be 'discovered' and then went back to the States.

But the US and Britain were the two biggest influences in the development of rock (not pop, which is a much more nebulous term and shouldn't really be used in this context). The rest of Europe was really just a place to go on tour.

You're naming The Beatles, but they're just one of several important bands in establishing the style of music in the 1960s. Do the names The Rolling Stones, The Who and Black Sabbath ring any bells? And in the 70s the tradition is further developed and kept alive by bands such as Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd as well as several of the former or former members of the break-up of those. There were a number of smaller, less famous bands and performers achieving great success too, such as The Kinks and Donovan who were quite popular at the time, but proved less enduring.

All those bands you mention were heavily influenced by the blues and other American forms of music. (Even the Kinks, who were probably the most English of those bands.) Donovan, of course, was often called the British Dylan - Bob Dylan being, along with the Beatles, probably the biggest influence on the development of music in that decade. He is, of course, American.

And then you can add in all the other American music that was being produced in this period, from the Beach Boys to the psychedelic sound to the singer-songwriter boom to proto-punk, and it really is laughable to say that rock music was developed solely by British bands.

As for non-American bands or performers achieving widespread success outside of the British foundations of modern music, well...Let's just say that Queen, U2, Abba, Spice Girls, Aqua and Rammstein want a word with you. As well as quite likely several others that I'm forgetting due to hardly being an expert in music.

Queen and the Spice Girls are British. There have always been non-US/UK acts that have been successful (and influential - Kraftwerk are German), but Abba and Aqua don't add up to a Scandanavian boom

On the whole of music and movies, the thing is that they're very language-dependant. British English is spoken many times more than American English (Australian English is it's own breed, but has more in common with British English than American English does with either).

I'd like to see the stats to back this one up. Actually, the most widely-spoken form of English is probably Globish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globish_(Nerriere), which is the language non-native English speakers use to communicate with each other when they don't have a common language. (It's often called the language of international business.) Native English speakers can have problems making themselves understood in a room full of people who appear to be speaking English.

Many British movies outsell American ones as well, even though America has 315 million inhabitants and the United Kingdom 63 million, so only a fifth of the amount of people who could be making movies or music. Currently, most big pop artists I can think of are either Canadian or British. If I'd have to name American artists, I'd have to branch out to metal and rock, and metal-wise Europe's got America beat.

I don't know why you pick on pop music particularly (or how you're defining it) but most popular forms of music today are dominated by US artists. Yes, there are non-US artists who are very successful in one genre or geographic area, but the point is that the US is big in all genres (pretty much) and all areas. Also, I disagree with your point about British movies outselling American ones. For a start most 'British' films nowadays are funded by US money, have US cast and/or crew and are generally about as British as **** Van Dyke's accent. Also, while Britain has made some very successful films, the ones that are real worldwide blockbusters, that are known by people all over the world, that have influence and impact (which is where this discussion started) are overwhelmingly US funded, made or otherwise originated. The LOTR trilogy doesn't make New Zealand a colossus in world cinema.

Andreaz

2013-01-25, 03:27 PM

You're making too big a deal about the whole "USian" thing. It's not the most used word, about 40% of the population here seems to use it, particularly historians, geographers and formal documents, stuff like that.
It's not "derogatory", nor even "claiming we matter too". It's just that the entire continent does have that name and thus everyone associates the name with the continent, not the country. Using a more specific term, like Estadounidense, is clearer, simpler and doesn't leave ambiguity.
Mexico doesn't count because everyone calls it Mexico and there's no conflict with other landmasses in that.

If you feel offended by that term all I can say is "tough luck, sorry if it's like that for you". The main use is not offensive, and the ways it can be used offensively apply to every word in the dictionary anyway. The very term "American" which is most used to refer to USA's populace was used near me in praises, neutral tones and the worst slurs.

Terraoblivion

2013-01-25, 04:18 PM

As soon as you can point out when I said that the USA is the only country that matters, you can feel free to keep on insulting. I've been claiming that it was most important, not the only important one. Like I've kept saying, I think that the US depends on China for manufactured goods. We also depend on the Middle East for oil, and the majority of our trade is with Canada, Mexico, and the rest of the Americas.

So those other places are important because they interact with the US?

Also, quite a few of those cheap Chinese goods you buy are from places like Vietnam, Indonesia or Bangladesh and not actually from China. Not like it's the only third world country that manufactures goods cheaply and in fact, rising wages in China and greater enforcement of labor regulations have meant that it is frequently more profitable to move to other places for labor intensive goods.

As for South America, I didn't say it was irrelevant or even unimportant, I said it made no impact on the worldwide zeitgeist, and that its importance is not as great as the importance of America. Stop building straw men.

And you can stop quoting nationalist, late enlightenment nonsense from Germany and then misapplying it. Also, you could explain how you can objectively say that a worldwide perception ignores South America? For one thing, it is part of the world and has people and those people seem to have a claim to defining worldwide perception too, which apparently means that they consider themselves unimportant. Which kinda points out the flaw in operating with a concept like a worldwide perception of importance, especially as regards to groups of people as these are the ones observing.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff from, but you're very mistaken. Rock 'n' roll was a major influence on British music in the 60s. Rock didn't exist until the late 60s. The Beatles were very definitely a rock 'n' roll band when they started out, and for many years of their career. What do you think they were playing in the Hamburg clubs? It certainly wasbn't whimsical British music hall. Yes, they definitely broadened the palette of popular music in their later career, but when they started they were very heavily American influenced (including skiffle, a much less well known genre these days, but very popular in the late 50s/ early 60s in Britain). Even more important on the bands that became the British Invasion, and hence probably the most influential bands of the time, was the blues, which was very definitely a black American musical form. Most of the British artists were very happy to acknowledge their debt to the old blues players, and in many cases helped revived careers for their heroes.

A number of cultural historical studies on the topic, specifically studying how the classic history of the development of rhythmic music in the 20th century holds up. They pretty unanimously found it to be a myth and that the disconnect between the British music of the 60s and rock'n'roll than they did between rock'n'roll and swing. They also point out that currency restrictions in Europe heavily curbed imports of rock'n'roll, along with other American popular culture such as comic books and movies that weren't actively being supported by the American government. I'll need to talk to my father to give you exact references, so I hope to get back to you tomorrow.

But the US and Britain were the two biggest influences in the development of rock (not pop, which is a much more nebulous term and shouldn't really be used in this context). The rest of Europe was really just a place to go on tour.

Yet the UK is undeniably not the US and the field was mostly dominated by British people developing their music in the UK playing for British audiences before going to the US or receiving American funding. You can't appropriate British culture and pretend it is American, it is British regardless of whether financial ties were established once bands were established.

Queen and the Spice Girls are British. There have always been non-US/UK acts that have been successful (and influential - Kraftwerk are German), but Abba and Aqua don't add up to a Scandanavian boom

And again, the UK is a distinct culture with its own culture as anybody who has ever been there or experienced the contrast between the tv produced in the two countries. I also never claimed a Scandinavian boom, I was simply listing a handful of bands to point out what you yourself said, that non-American acts can be successful and indeed frequently are. It's even more pronounced when people don't pretend the UK is the US.

I'd like to see the stats to back this one up. Actually, the most widely-spoken form of English is probably Globish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globish_(Nerriere), which is the language non-native English speakers use to communicate with each other when they don't have a common language. (It's often called the language of international business.) Native English speakers can have problems making themselves understood in a room full of people who appear to be speaking English.

While there does exist evidence that more than half of all conversations in English are between non-native speakers, I have serious doubt that it coincides neatly with the random sample carried out without academic rigor by a non-linguist who is seems to have an eye towards earning money from his findings. In fact it would be incredibly unlikely that it was, due to vast differences in English language usage between countries, how the language is taught in different places and what purposes people put it to.

For a start most 'British' films nowadays are funded by US money, have US cast and/or crew and are generally about as British as **** Van Dyke's accent.

In a word, no. Most of the big budget, mainstream Hollywood'ish British films are quite based on American talent and money, they form a tiny subset of the entire British film industry, which is strongly focused on its domestic market. Apart from the insularity of most of the British film industry, this is further amplified by how insular the American industry is and how hard it is for any foreign film to get shown in a significant number of American theaters or get any particular marketing for the dvd version. British cinema is significantly more popular in Europe, just like that of other European nations, though far less so than in its native country.

Tanngrisnir

2013-01-25, 06:20 PM

I've heard that island people tend to use seashells as a form of currency the most though. Is such the case in Polynesia?

In New Zealand, we have a type of Jade called Pounamu. It's only found on the South Island, but is easy to get, so in the times of the early Maori it was only sort of rare. It wasn't used as a currency though, neither were shells. Maori traded goods (mostly food) for what they needed, or took it by force if the need was great.

Pounamu was believed to increase in mana (prestige) as it was handed from generation to generation, so a tribes greensone weapons and tools were considered sacred. You could also have your greenstone (well, anything really) made tapu (taboo) so that if anyone outside your iwi used it it would curse them.

As for the bones, they were far more rarely used than wood or stone, but it would be the bones of the enemy.

RPGuru1331

2013-01-25, 07:12 PM

Queen and the Spice Girls are British. There have always been non-US/UK acts that have been successful (and influential - Kraftwerk are German), but Abba and Aqua don't add up to a Scandanavian boom
Oh, apparently I'm having a very bizarre Victoria dream, because the UK was annexed by the USA and was integrated entirely...

I'd like to see the stats to back this one up. Actually, the most widely-spoken form of English is probably Globish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globish_(Nerriere), which is the language non-native English speakers use to communicate with each other when they don't have a common language
How marvelous, now it's not American/Queen's english but a special clipped version... TOEFLs are a big deal for nothing apparently.

I just learned that originally, America was actually going to call itself Columbia. However, Gran Columbia already existed. Since there was no nation calling itself America at the time, and as the continent is North America, not just "America," we didn't think Canada or Mexico would mind, since they weren't themselves doing anything with the name.
No, your founders were trying to make a big deal about how it was a clean break and you were unique, not 'thinking the others weren't going to use it', which I doubt entered their mind at all. It was propaganda, albeit propaganda that I'm reasonably confident they believed whole heartedly.

As soon as you can point out when I said that the USA is the only country that matters,
"All of history is a practice run for today" + all the nonsense about how the other countries only matter now because the USA + your sheer inability to recognize the historic importance of a country that isn't Rome = "ONLY THE US MATTERS". Well, and Rome, but given what you've been doing, that's hardly a pass.

So those other places are important because they interact with the US?

What else would create importance?

Like I've kept saying, I think that the US depends on China for manufactured goods. We also depend on the Middle East for oil, and the majority of our trade is with Canada, Mexico, and the rest of the Americas.
You defined Chinese importance by their utility to the USA. Again. After a more in-depth explanation of the role China is taking in the world around it, and why it can't simply be ignored as a global power, even outside of its relationship to the USA. You defined the Middle East by their utility to your culture. Again. And defined that as its only historical purpose. And you want me to provide proof to you that you don't go out of your way to trivialize the rest of the world.

As for South America, I didn't say it was irrelevant or even unimportant, I said it made no impact on the worldwide zeitgeist, and that its importance is not as great as the importance of America. Stop building straw men.

Zeitgeist isn't a thing, and even if it were, just because you have no earthly idea what is up in South America doesn't make the rest of us ignorant. And don't try to pretend with us now - you didn't just say South America was less important. You pretty explicitly said it was irrelevant and nobody really cares about it. In a thread asking for their myths for purposes of running a differently themed game.

Besides, referring to the US solely as "The United States" is misleading anyway, since America consists of other territories, protectorates, and dependencies that are not themselves states, such as Puerto Rico (SO CLOSE TO STATEHOOD! GAH! I WANT A FIFTY-FIRST STAR!!!*), Guam, the US Virgin Islands...

Yeah, you have no idea what is going on on that island if you think it actually wants to be a state. And I am aware you still have colonies - I don't hold it against them.

Ignoramous, ignorant nob, USian...you're just a fun-filled and pleasant person, aren't you?

Have you tried not being ignorant? It goes over a lot better!

Ugh. I know it is not literally a synonym for gringo. My point was that I interpret it as being just as insulting as gringo.

Yes, I know you are equating not having your ego stroked with a slur, I understood you th e first three times you complained about it. I know that's the closest you've been to a slur. It just doesn't make it one.

Like I said, telling Americans that we're not Americans due to the continent being called America, is like going up to someone named John and telling them that they can't use the name John because there's someone else who's much larger using the name John.

No, it's more like if you told all the other Johns that they were no longer John, and had to use full names because he's the real John, and the rest of us were John Johnson or John Henry or whatever. But do keep trying to look good with bad analogies, I'm sure that'll make me agree with you - you are most certainly not the first whiny USian who tried to make a big deal about how you DESERVED to be called American, darn it.

But I was being sarcastic.
Again, not seven.

And again, if you would care to re-read what I posted, I outright stated that South Korea would win the war with North Korea.
Then why all the nonsense about peacekeepers? And why stick to it? (this is rhetorical, you might as well stop digging deeper in assuming we are all fools)

As for opinions: the relative amount of impact a culture has made upon the world isn't formed from opinions, it's formed from the examination of the facts.
Objective facts like 'South America is the forgotten continent, nobody knows what it does'.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-26, 12:29 AM

EDIT
Okay, okay, I'm weak, but seriously this is my final post.

closest you've been to a slur

Actually this is more of a question here. Are you saying that being called a USian is the closest that anyone has ever been to insulting me; or are you saying that me referring to you as a "pleasant person," with obvious sarcastic intent, is the closest I've been to a slur towards you?

'Cause if it's the former, it's definitely not true: I've been called a ******, a nerd, a cracker, an *******, a ****er, whitey, a Mic, and a few others that slip my mind at the moment.

If it's the latter...then yeah, probably.

Yeah, you have no idea what is going on on that island if you think it actually wants to be a state.

And with this, I actually am seriously going to bow out of the conversation, as it makes it incredibly clear that you're not actually willing to even accept the possibility that I might be right, ever. Furthermore, it demonstrated clearly that you don't actually read what I'm writing, since I said that I want it to be a state, while simultaneously making it clear that, while a significant minority of Puerto Ricans favor statehood, the plurality (but not majority!) do not.

Everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statehood_movement_in_Puerto_Rico) I posted (http://www.puertoricoreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2012-concurrent-resolution.pdf) is verifiable (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/Puerto_Rico_Task_Force_Report.pdf) fact. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/puerto-rico-statehood)

Furthermore, here are the results of the four referendums - '67, '93, '98, and '12 - for your perusal.

{table=header]Status|1967|1993|1998|2012A|2012B
Independence|0.6%|4.4%|2.54%|NA|5.5%
Commonwealth|60.4%|48.6%|.06%|46.0%|NA
Free Association|NA|NA|.29%|NA|33.2%
Statehood|39.0%|46.3%|46.49%|NA|61.3%
None of the Above|NA|NA|50.3%|NA|NA
Voter Turnout|66%|74%|71%|79%|79%[/table]
1967 & 1993: "Free Association" and "None of the Above" were not choices in the '67 nor the '93 plebiscite.
1998: Due to disputed wording over the definition of "Commonwealth" in the '98 referendum, political parties in Puerto Rico who favored the continuation of Commonwealth status advised voters to vote "none of the above." Thus while the Commonwealth vote seems low in this plebiscite, in actuality nearly every "none of the above" vote should be counted as a vote for "commonwealth"
2012: As previously outlined, the referendum was split into two questions, represented here by 2012A ("do you agree that Puerto Rico should retain its current territorial status?") and 2012B ("of these alternatives, which do you favor?")
Voter Turnout: Of course, this is the total number of eligible voters in Puerto Rico who did, in fact, vote. A turnout of ~70% is actually fairly typical in a democracy: the Costa Rican presidential elections in 2010, for example, had a turnout of about 69%, and the US presidential election in 2012 had a turnout of only about 57.5% or so

The results are clear: as of 2012, the majority of Puerto Ricans do not favor the continuation of Commonwealth status. Of the Puerto Ricans who do not wish to retain Commonwealth status, the majority favor statehood. However, there are still not enough Puerto Ricans who favor statehood to make it come true. This makes me sad, but as I said, democratic country with a democratic colony. It's their choice. I just wish they'd make a differnt one.

Though I can see why they don't: Commonwealth status is actually a pretty sweet deal, what with 90% of the benefits of statehood with few, if any, of the drawbacks. There's probably a dozen states in the US that would love to have Puerto Rico's political status, willingly giving up their votes in Congress in exchange for the various perks Commonwealths enjoy.

Still...I can dream.

Anyway, point being that I think I made it pretty clear that the political status of Puerto Rico is a passion of mine, as I honestly think America's gone too long without adding another star to its flag, and Puerto Rico's addition seems long overdue. I do have an idea of what's going on there, as I try to keep current with Puerto Rican news and events as best I can for a guy who only speaks English and a bit of Latin. I'd even dare to say that, barring you actually being Puerto Rican yourself, I probably have a better idea of what's going on there than you do. I certainly - as the numbers above, which the links above those numbers can verify, show - have a better idea concerning the question of its political status and the way Puerto Ricans feel about it than you do, regardless of whether or not you yourself are Puerto Rican.

So there we have it; as I said, I'm out.

awa

2013-01-26, 01:58 AM

im kinda amazed this has not been closed yet is the original discussion even still going on?

Draken

2013-01-26, 02:14 AM

Man. This thread is nasty.

Ok, let me try to give Morph Bark my humble opinion on the fantastical side of South America, as a local.

For positioning matters, I will inform that I am on the state of Amazon, in the country of Brazil. There is only one really relevant urban zone in the state so I will make you look it up if you are interested.

So. Fantasy setting of South America.

As these things go, we will reminisce to the time of the dark ages, we will imagine the south american continent before the first Europeans came and wrecked the delicate balances of power in the area.

Lets start with some very basic and sweeping geography. You will see three kinds of terrain in this fantasy scenario, and each one will boast a certain type civilization.

First, you will have a mountainous region, a stand-in for the Andes range. A few features of this area will be tall mountains reaching permafrost altitudes, rocky trails overlooking the other two dominant terrains, and as an exotic fixture, the most desolate place any mortal is likely to find on the material plane, the shimmering, dry vistas of a salt desert. The civilization in this area is a stand-in for the Inca Empire, with the Mayincatec mishmash we all know and to varying degrees, love.

Technically, this whole stuff is out of my expertise because the Inca Empire never extended to the area where I live, I guess a Chilean, Colombian or Equatorian would have more on the subject.

The second dominant terrain are various plains. Steppes, aluvial plains, etc, etc. These are mostly inland, with forests forming by seaside and hiding these territories from the view of outsiders. They also have a tendency for droughts (the huge fluvial systems of the rian forests tend to end at the rainforests themselves), so people for the most part... Don't live here? Sure, there are people, but much less than in the jungles, in fact, since this area is probably completely bordered by jungles, that is where everyone goes.

When outsiders come into this fantastical continent, however, this is exactly where they will settle. It is the most accessible area. Irrigation makes it excellent for ye medieval monoculture. History says so!

The third dominant terrain is the one people are most used to thinking of, but don't mix properly with the civilization (and don't treat the terrain itself properly either, I guess), it is the sweeping, all-encompassing rain forest that stands in for the Amazon. The local civilization is comprised of numerous warring tribes with similar belief systems, economical and cultural profile, etc, etc. They are fisher-hunter-gatherers and also practice agriculture. And some of them practice ritual cannibalism of captured enemy warriors (but, very, very few, such that these are treated as an oddity by the others, a scary oddity). Also no pyramids. That is mesoamerica, not south america.

Now let me tell you one thing about the Amazon area. Someone mentioned "pre-dark ages technology" and "people who haven't even discovered the wheel". What I want to say is simply that, in this place, the wheel would be worth very little. Not useless, sure, but that great. The floor here is one of three things: mud, roots or water, none of which are very good for wheels.

Water deserves a special mention. The Amazonic region is drenched. There is water above, there is water to the sides, there is water underneath. Take a bad step and the water will wash you away. People will settle by water, because it is ideal for transportation (to this day, most transport in here is done by boat) and an excellent source of food (fishing and agriculture).

The tribes are primitive, dense forest causes unification to be a problem, titanic rivers cause unification to be a problem, and hell, throw in some malaria for good measure. Nobody is safe from malaria. The jungle is untamed. The waters are dark and deep (very dark and very deep), and these things breed dread, specially when people are so dependant on it, and exploration isn't really an option.

Since this is fantasy, I feel like talking about the monsters one is expected to find (still focusing on the jungle region, because hey, that is what I know best).

Three animals dominate the imaginary of the people. The snake, the jaguar and the river dolphin.

Piranhas and alligators don't get a whole lot of mythical screentime, interestingly.

Enormous snakes take the position of god-monsters. Pretty much the local dragons! They have elemental powers, they have a mean streak, they hide untold treasures at the distant depths of the riverbed where they nest.

Jaguars take the place of the cunning predators in the forest, in the night. The usual stuff done with great cats and wolves, I guess. Also sometimes humaniform, never shapeshifters, however.

River dolphins take the shapeshifting! They are casanovas, coming out of the river in human form to seduce women. Not particularly nasty, but kind of perverted I guess? Teen dreams and parental nightmares, south america style.

Hope this blabber helps. Bet it helps more than the argument that was raging on until page three, when I gave up midway and skipped to writing this.

Stubbazubba

2013-01-26, 02:24 AM

My only contribution to the off-topic; living in Shanghai is not a representative experience of the whole of China. Written from Nanjing.

Morph Bark

2013-01-26, 05:32 AM

Well the obvious Oceania one would be Spices. All manner of spices that can be bought for pittances over there and end up being extremely valuable elsewhere in the world. Of course craftsmanship comes into play, take for example Damascus Steel, which may be more valuable than an equivalent item elsewhere because of the apparent artistry and craftsmanship of the item itself.

Africa having finished trade goods like jewelry made of turquoise, tortoise shells, ivory, etc. Not to mention in areas like North Africa parchment would be a bit easier to produce than in the typical northern European setting, making them perhaps the preeminent exporters of literature.

I'm wondering what the best way to describe my setting will end up being if I'll include stuff from a various range of cultures and time periods and items like Damascus Steel. "An anachronistic science fantasy taken to the extreme"? :smalltongue:

Was parchment that much easier to make in North Africa? I thought it was made from animal hides, which are aplenty in Europe. Don't you perhaps mean papyrus, or do you know something more about parchment production?

In New Zealand, we have a type of Jade called Pounamu. It's only found on the South Island, but is easy to get, so in the times of the early Maori it was only sort of rare. It wasn't used as a currency though, neither were shells. Maori traded goods (mostly food) for what they needed, or took it by force if the need was great.

Pounamu was believed to increase in mana (prestige) as it was handed from generation to generation, so a tribes greensone weapons and tools were considered sacred. You could also have your greenstone (well, anything really) made tapu (taboo) so that if anyone outside your iwi used it it would curse them.

As for the bones, they were far more rarely used than wood or stone, but it would be the bones of the enemy.

The concept of mana has always been an intruiging one, though I've known so little of it even today. Could you perhaps expand upon it, if possible? Something like that sounds like it'd be a major contribution to how someone part of a particular culture would act.

The bone thing gives me a great, slightly disturbing idea for a different sort of island culture possible for the setting. Like people having small shrines or temples for some important gods, with the shrine for the god of war and death made of the bones of their enemies. So if you'd come across a settlement of theirs where they didn't have such a shrine, or it was small, they hadn't seen much war. (This is of course much different from what Polynesian tribes do, but it just popped into my head.)

Ok, let me try to give Morph Bark my humble opinion on the fantastical side of South America, as a local.

For positioning matters, I will inform that I am on the state of Amazon, in the country of Brazil. There is only one really relevant urban zone in the state so I will make you look it up if you are interested.

Sounds like a good start. :smallsmile: What's the relevant urban zone?

So. Fantasy setting of South America.

As these things go, we will reminisce to the time of the dark ages, we will imagine the south american continent before the first Europeans came and wrecked the delicate balances of power in the area.

Lets start with some very basic and sweeping geography. You will see three kinds of terrain in this fantasy scenario, and each one will boast a certain type civilization.

First, you will have a mountainous region, a stand-in for the Andes range. A few features of this area will be tall mountains reaching permafrost altitudes, rocky trails overlooking the other two dominant terrains, and as an exotic fixture, the most desolate place any mortal is likely to find on the material plane, the shimmering, dry vistas of a salt desert. The civilization in this area is a stand-in for the Inca Empire, with the Mayincatec mishmash we all know and to varying degrees, love.

Technically, this whole stuff is out of my expertise because the Inca Empire never extended to the area where I live, I guess a Chilean, Colombian or Equatorian would have more on the subject.

The second dominant terrain are various plains. Steppes, aluvial plains, etc, etc. These are mostly inland, with forests forming by seaside and hiding these territories from the view of outsiders. They also have a tendency for droughts (the huge fluvial systems of the rian forests tend to end at the rainforests themselves), so people for the most part... Don't live here? Sure, there are people, but much less than in the jungles, in fact, since this area is probably completely bordered by jungles, that is where everyone goes.

When outsiders come into this fantastical continent, however, this is exactly where they will settle. It is the most accessible area. Irrigation makes it excellent for ye medieval monoculture. History says so!

The third dominant terrain is the one people are most used to thinking of, but don't mix properly with the civilization (and don't treat the terrain itself properly either, I guess), it is the sweeping, all-encompassing rain forest that stands in for the Amazon. The local civilization is comprised of numerous warring tribes with similar belief systems, economical and cultural profile, etc, etc. They are fisher-hunter-gatherers and also practice agriculture. And some of them practice ritual cannibalism of captured enemy warriors (but, very, very few, such that these are treated as an oddity by the others, a scary oddity). Also no pyramids. That is mesoamerica, not south america.

Now let me tell you one thing about the Amazon area. Someone mentioned "pre-dark ages technology" and "people who haven't even discovered the wheel". What I want to say is simply that, in this place, the wheel would be worth very little. Not useless, sure, but that great. The floor here is one of three things: mud, roots or water, none of which are very good for wheels.

Water deserves a special mention. The Amazonic region is drenched. There is water above, there is water to the sides, there is water underneath. Take a bad step and the water will wash you away. People will settle by water, because it is ideal for transportation (to this day, most transport in here is done by boat) and an excellent source of food (fishing and agriculture).

The tribes are primitive, dense forest causes unification to be a problem, titanic rivers cause unification to be a problem, and hell, throw in some malaria for good measure. Nobody is safe from malaria. The jungle is untamed. The waters are dark and deep (very dark and very deep), and these things breed dread, specially when people are so dependant on it, and exploration isn't really an option.

I'll ask someone else about the Inca, particularly because, to be honest, I didn't know they didn't build pyramids (well, since you said it's not your expertise, maybe they did and you just don't know, but I'll find out more later).

I knew water was a big deal in the Amazon, but not that it was like that! That sounds more like a swamp that happens to be filled with a great amount of trees. Does the Amazon delta include a lot of swampland?

The tribes being primitive is easily somewhat-fixed by the inclusion of fantasy elements and the typical DnD mechanics. I'd imagine they'd have stuff like tree houses and powerful nature-focused spellcasters.

Since this is fantasy, I feel like talking about the monsters one is expected to find (still focusing on the jungle region, because hey, that is what I know best).

Three animals dominate the imaginary of the people. The snake, the jaguar and the river dolphin.

Piranhas and alligators don't get a whole lot of mythical screentime, interestingly.

Enormous snakes take the position of god-monsters. Pretty much the local dragons! They have elemental powers, they have a mean streak, they hide untold treasures at the distant depths of the riverbed where they nest.

Huh. That's new. But also quite interesting! Snakes with elemental powers, I'm sure I can do something with that that'll make them fit right into the setting as a whole.

Jaguars take the place of the cunning predators in the forest, in the night. The usual stuff done with great cats and wolves, I guess. Also sometimes humaniform, never shapeshifters, however.

Interesting. I kind of would have expected jaguars to be shapeshifters to be honest. Guess that's one expectation turned upside down!

River dolphins take the shapeshifting! They are casanovas, coming out of the river in human form to seduce women. Not particularly nasty, but kind of perverted I guess? Teen dreams and parental nightmares, south america style.

Yeah, yesterday I happened to read an article about the... Encantado or something? (It was Brazilian, as I recall.) Man, I knew there've been cases of dolphins doing... stuff to people, but add in shapeshifting and a more cunning approach and it gets worse. :smalleek:

Hope this blabber helps. Bet it helps more than the argument that was raging on until page three, when I gave up midway and skipped to writing this.

It does, thank you Draken. :smallsmile:

im kinda amazed this has not been closed yet is the original discussion even still going on?

As proven by the rest of my post, yes. Sadly, only half of the posts in this thread is now dedicated to the original topic thanks to RPGuru's need to discuss other matters and people responding to it, rather than make a thread of its own for it, even after repeatedly being told to do so. The mods have been informed, and I hope they take action, but will either not lock the thread or later unlock it again so the original topic can continue to be discussed.

Kami2awa

2013-01-26, 06:14 AM

Tanngrisnir

2013-01-26, 06:20 AM

The concept of mana has always been an intruiging one, though I've known so little of it even today. Could you perhaps expand upon it, if possible? Something like that sounds like it'd be a major contribution to how someone part of a particular culture would act.

Mana can be a bit difficult to explain correctly, but I'll give it a go. Basically, mana is the prestige or honour that a person has. It is how people see them and react to them, and can be gained and lost over time, much like respect.

There are three main types of mana.

There is the mana you are born with from your whakapapa (loosely translated to genealogy, but a bit more complicated). This deals with things like the rank within the tribe of your parents and grandparents, or ancestors from further back (possibly even mythological). Also, if your whanu (actual family within the tribe) are known to be skilled at particular things, you have mana in respect to those skills.

There is the mana that other people give you. This is in relation to people giving you mana for skills and deeds you yourself have or have preformed. Being descended from a great line may start you off in life with mana, but you have to maintain it and prove yourself throughout your life to keep it and increase it. Humbleness was greatly treasured by the Maori (still is by all of New Zealand) so often great leaders would not boast of their own skills.

There is the mana that a group has. This is basically how respected your iwi (tribe) or hapu (subtribe or clan) or whanau (blood family) are by other people. Personal mana aids this, but it is more a reflection of how well you treat your friends and enemies, visitors and guests. If you treat them well, they tell others about it and your groups mana increases, and vice versa.

Writing all that, it sort of pretty much is just respect, but it's on more of a spiritual level. The loss of mana would be a grievous thing, worthy (in a D&D type world) of going on a quest to retrieve or make recompense. Mana is still greatly important today.

The bone thing gives me a great, slightly disturbing idea for a different sort of island culture possible for the setting. Like people having small shrines or temples for some important gods, with the shrine for the god of war and death made of the bones of their enemies. So if you'd come across a settlement of theirs where they didn't have such a shrine, or it was small, they hadn't seen much war. (This is of course much different from what Polynesian tribes do, but it just popped into my head.)

That definitely sounds like a good way to make a fantasy Oceanic setting more grim and, well, fantasy like. I like it.

Also just a word on creatures. I noticed you've been discussing jungle creatures in the thread, but I missed if this was in relation to a Polynesian setting or not. If it is, I'll just point out that Polynesian islands, especially in the South Pacific, have forests not jungles. So no big cats, snakes don't really happen etc.

However, since New Zealand's native animals are almost entirely flightless birds or small lizards whose survival instinct is to stand really still while hoping the threat goes away (I'm looking at you, tuatara!) you may want to go with the more interesting South American/African jungle creatures.

Though we did have the largest eagle to ever exist. It's called Haast's Eagle and used to prey on the Moa that also used to live here, you should check it out.

Morph Bark

2013-01-26, 07:28 AM

I could never pretend to be an expert but Australia has the idea of the Dreamtime, an alternate, rather trippy realm where spirits live and energy lines connect "Dreaming Sites" like Uluru (Ayer's Rock). That actually sounds like a cool starting point for an original magic system.

It really does, doesn't it? As my setting includes a plane called the Nightmare Realm (which used to be much more dream-y), it could have connections with that.

The aborigines also have the oldest continually maintained culture in the world, with myths that point out landmarks that have been engulfed by the sea in the ensuing millenia. Their language is the oldest in the world (what happens if you perform magic rituals in the oldest language in the world?) There are theories that they once had a much more advanced culture (for a start, how did they get there in the first place?)

Speculation about them once being a more advanced culture sounds intruiging. I don't suppose you know where I could find more on that?

HP Lovecraft stuck the lost cities of the Great Race of Yith in the Australian desert, forgotten basalt towers containing alien tech and time travellers.

:smallbiggrin: Sounds great. Considering I intend to have the setting sprinkled with bits of horror stuff, and time travel existing in an incredibly rare and limited form, that'd fit right in.

Mana can be a bit difficult to explain correctly, but I'll give it a go.

Reading through that all, it sounds a bit like the Reputation variant subsystem of Unearthed Arcana. With how mana is often used as a term for magic energy in gaming these days, I'm thinking it'd be interesting to form a ritual-based magic system that takes its energy from people's reputation, and have it be necessary that multiple people of the same family are involved. It would be a relatively minor thing overall, as it would be a system outside of classes, but it'd give PCs more reason to keep connection with their family.

Also just a word on creatures. I noticed you've been discussing jungle creatures in the thread, but I missed if this was in relation to a Polynesian setting or not. If it is, I'll just point out that Polynesian islands, especially in the South Pacific, have forests not jungles. So no big cats, snakes don't really happen etc.

However, since New Zealand's native animals are almost entirely flightless birds or small lizards whose survival instinct is to stand really still while hoping the threat goes away (I'm looking at you, tuatara!) you may want to go with the more interesting South American/African jungle creatures.

Though we did have the largest eagle to ever exist. It's called Haast's Eagle and used to prey on the Moa that also used to live here, you should check it out.

The jungle creatures was regarding the Amazonian jungle. I imagine that Pacific islands would have more in the way of lizards and wild boar. Right?

I just so happen to have gotten a picture of a Haast's Eagle (interpretation) from someone in another thread of mine, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14535351#post14535351). It definitely looks like it could be quite menacing!

Avilan the Grey

2013-01-26, 07:36 AM

South America: Horror. Survival horror and / or Eldrich Abomination Horror. And pyramids and human sacrifice. All connected, of course.

NA: Pulp Detective Stories, Action, Crime, Gangster, Military.

Tanngrisnir

2013-01-26, 07:48 AM

Reading through that all, it sounds a bit like the Reputation variant subsystem of Unearthed Arcana. With how mana is often used as a term for magic energy in gaming these days, I'm thinking it'd be interesting to form a ritual-based magic system that takes its energy from people's reputation, and have it be necessary that multiple people of the same family are involved. It would be a relatively minor thing overall, as it would be a system outside of classes, but it'd give PCs more reason to keep connection with their family.

I really like the sound of that. Could be a great RP factor of a campaign.

The jungle creatures was regarding the Amazonian jungle. I imagine that Pacific islands would have more in the way of lizards and wild boar. Right?

Pretty much. Boars, lizards, sharks, spiders and predatory birds are the more frightening things that happen down here. But if you're going with a fantasy/mythology setting then animal spirits, shapeshifters and nature spirits/elementals fit in perfectly with native mythology.

Also, in Maori mythology, there are creatures known as taniwha (pronounced tun - e - fa) that are large water dwelling creatures. They are both guardians of certain people or places, and dangerous predators. There is no hard and fast rule to what a taniwha actually looks like, they have been described as looking like sharks, lizards, whales etc. Some say they can only be in water, others say they can tunnel through land and cause earthquakes and landslides.

There are legends of going to battle with them, but also of making deals with them, with some taniwha befriending individual people or whole tribes.

I never really noticed it before but they are pretty much our version of ancient dragons.

EDIT: Just remembered that in the colder parts of New Zealand we also have fur seals and elephant seals, which can be plenty dangerous when riled up, and allow for some variation in setting while keeping a Polynesian feel. It seems quite easy for people not in New Zealand to forget that we are actually quite close to Antartica.

Second EDIT: Also, we have Giant Squid. While no attacks on humans have been reported, they are pretty sweet creatures in a fantasy setting.

I just so happen to have gotten a picture of a Haast's Eagle (interpretation) from someone in another thread of mine, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14535351#post14535351). It definitely looks like it could be quite menacing!

It's brutal right? Also, in case you're interested, those are Moa it is attacking, our now extinct flightless bird that could grow to 12 feet tall.

Morph Bark

2013-01-26, 08:07 AM

NA: Pulp Detective Stories, Action, Crime, Gangster, Military.

Now that's something I hadn't so quickly expected to be honest, especially pulp detective stories! Hmmm, I wonder how something like Sin City could fit into a more extreme, DnD-ified world...

Also, in Maori mythology, there are creatures known as taniwha (pronounced tun - e - fa) that are large water dwelling creatures. [...] I never really noticed it before but they are pretty much our version of ancient dragons.

Ha! That sounds pretty great. I had actually been wondering about how to spread dragons across the world and had decided that their once-every-five-years breeding ground would be on the Australia-equivalent, but I guess I can leave the Pasifika out of it, as they have their own "dragons"! Similar to what Draken said earlier about snakes in South America and them having a similar status to dragons in Europe and the Far East as well.

EDIT: Just remembered that in the colder parts of New Zealand we also have fur seals and elephant seals, which can be plenty dangerous when riled up, and allow for some variation in setting while keeping a Polynesian feel. It seems quite easy for people not in New Zealand to forget that we are actually quite close to Antartica.

Second EDIT: Also, we have Giant Squid. While no attacks on humans have been reported, they are pretty sweet creatures in a fantasy setting.

Fur seals, really? Does it get that cold in the south of New Zealand, or does it have some islands much closer to the Antarctic!

Giant Squid and its ilk are always perfect for a fantasy setting that involves seafaring. :smallbiggrin:

It's brutal right? Also, in case you're interested, those are Moa it is attacking, our now extinct flightless bird that could grow to 12 feet tall.

Twelve? :smalleek: I knew they could be big, but only like, eight feet maybe. That's quite bit more than I'd expected. I'm half expecting there to be even bigger moas in a fantasy setting now, especially if you'd have them be preyed upon by rocs or such.

Yora

2013-01-26, 08:11 AM

Yet they were all eaten by newly arrived settlers within decades. Didn't do them much good being so much meat in an easy to hunt package.

Most of the size is legs and neck.

Fur seals, really? Does it get that cold in the south of New Zealand, or does it have some islands much closer to the Antarctic!
Southern New Zealand is as far south as Patagonia. Further south is the antarctic ocean and seals have to endure the cold water even in winter. Also they might just be the northernmost population of their native range, and the fur doesn't realy become a problem when the weather is less harsh.

In the north, fur seals live as far south as California and Korea.

Now that's something I hadn't so quickly expected to be honest, especially pulp detective stories! Hmmm, I wonder how something like Sin City could fit into a more extreme, DnD-ified world...
It's called Eberron. :smallbiggrin:

Tanngrisnir

2013-01-26, 08:27 AM

Fur seals, really? Does it get that cold in the south of New Zealand, or does it have some islands much closer to the Antarctic!

Nope, the mainland gets cold. Standard temperature for winter in the North Island is 10 to 15 degrees Celsius (50 to 59 Fahrenheit, I think) and 5 to 10 in the South Island (41 to 50 Fahrenheit, I think). It snows regularly in the South Island, and the temperature has been recorded to drop as low as negative 25 degrees Celsius (negative 13 Fahrenheit). Yeah, it gets pretty cold, depending on where you are.

Coupled with that we have drought, flood, tropical cyclones, frost, high humidity . . . everything, pretty much at random too. there is a saying that in New Zealand you literally get all four seasons in a single day. Our weather is mental.

Giant Squid and its ilk are always perfect for a fantasy setting that involves seafaring. :smallbiggrin:

Haha definitely. I both love and slightly fear the sea, so it's awesome having giant squid and dolphins and whales regualarly just off the coast to watch.

Twelve? :smalleek: I knew they could be big, but only like, eight feet maybe. That's quite bit more than I'd expected. I'm half expecting there to be even bigger moas in a fantasy setting now, especially if you'd have them be preyed upon by rocs or such.

Twelve feet is the largest of the nine species but yeah, they were pretty massive. Yora is right though, they were hunted to extinction within 100 years or so of the Maori first arriving, so in a fantasy setting you'd want to tough them up a bit.

EDIT: We also have large stretches of land, mostly in the north island, of underground volcanic activity leading to stretches of land covered in boiling mud pools and hot water springs. We have a beach, aptly named hot water beach, where if you dig a hole in the sand it will fill from the bottom with geothermally warmed water.

Also, New Zealand is split vertically along two tectonic plates, so earthquakes are extremely common. Our main city, Wellington, has experienced over 30 earthquakes in the last two months. Small ones, but they are very much a part of life here.

I just keep thinking of things. We are also home to Lake Taupo, which was formed when a volcano erupted so violently around the year 1000 that the entire mountain was destroyed and turned into a crater. The red sky caused by it was recorded as being visible in Rome and China.

Basically, I'm saying we have heaps of varied stuff going on :smallsmile:

Morph Bark

2013-01-26, 08:29 AM

Yet they were all eaten by newly arrived settlers within decades. Didn't do them much good being so much meat in an easy to hunt package.

Most of the size is legs and neck.

So basically a bigger version of the dodo.

It's called Eberron. :smallbiggrin:

Eh, Eberron takes a huge page out of pulp action stuff, but not so much on the detective/gangster angle, I feel. It's partially the overall optimistic feel, perhaps. Besides, I was specifically talking cities, not a setting as a whole, and besides Sharn and Stormreach, there aren't really any important cities in Eberron I can recall off the top of my head.

Well, besides... Korranberg, I think? But that's just because they got an awesome library.

Eberron is much more Indiana Jones and Zorro and much less Sin City and the Godfather, I think. It does have the Investigator PrC, but I don't remember right now how handy it really is for investigations.

Tanngrisnir

2013-01-26, 08:36 AM

Made a bunch of edits to my previous post you may want to check out Morph.

Morph Bark

2013-01-26, 08:56 AM

Apparently you posted while I was doing the same, so I missed your post entirely! Let me rectify.

Nope, the mainland gets cold. Standard temperature for winter in the North Island is 10 to 15 degrees Celsius (50 to 59 Fahrenheit, I think) and 5 to 10 in the South Island (41 to 50 Fahrenheit, I think).

Anything in the positives is lukewarm at worst. :smalltongue: Negative 25 is pretty darn cold though.

Coupled with that we have drought, flood, tropical cyclones, frost, high humidity . . . everything, pretty much at random too. there is a saying that in New Zealand you literally get all four seasons in a single day. Our weather is mental.

Sounds kind of like Scotland. Makes me think I should give the pseudo-Celts friendly relations with the pseudo-Maori. Kind of like the Polish and Hungarians. I wonder how many other ethnicities have a history of friendship despite not being neighbours...

Haha definitely. I both love and slightly fear the sea, so it's awesome having giant squid and dolphins and whales regualarly just off the coast to watch.

As I come from a country that has a history of struggling with floods, yet very dependant on the sea for trade, I know what it's like to have such a complex relationship with the sea. :smallsmile:

EDIT: We also have large stretches of land, mostly in the north island, of underground volcanic activity leading to stretches of land covered in boiling mud pools and hot water springs. We have a beach, aptly named hot water beach, where if you dig a hole in the sand it will fill from the bottom with geothermally warmed water.

Also, New Zealand is split vertically along two tectonic plates, so earthquakes are extremely common. Our main city, Wellington, has experienced over 30 earthquakes in the last two months. Small ones, but they are very much a part of life here.

Yikes, no wonder there's huge mythical creatures that create earthquakes in legends! I wonder how fantasy architecture would be built to withstand them...

The hot water beach sounds almost like a "dig your own free hotspring" site. :smallbiggrin: I don't suppose it's gets used a lot for relaxation or physical therapy?

I just keep thinking of things. We are also home to Lake Taupo, which was formed when a volcano erupted so violently around the year 1000 that the entire mountain was destroyed and turned into a crater. The red sky caused by it was recorded as being visible in Rome and China.

This sounded like a cool historical tidbit, so I looked it up. It was a bit earlier (accounts vary on the exact year, but it's usually the 3rd century AD), but it often mentions the sky being red in Rome and China. That'd make for a cool timespot to hop off to if time travel got involved...

Tanngrisnir

2013-01-26, 09:12 AM

Sounds kind of like Scotland. Makes me think I should give the pseudo-Celts friendly relations with the pseudo-Maori. Kind of like the Polish and Hungarians. I wonder how many other ethnicities have a history of friendship despite not being neighbours...

Actually, when Europeans were settling New Zealand, the South Island is where most of the Scottish people set up. My family is originally from Scotland, about 4 or 5 generations ago (we're a very young country) and one of our major cities, Dunedin, is still very heavily influenced by Scottish culture. Even the regional accent there is a bit Scottish in respect to how the letter R is pronounced. So that all works perfectly.

As I come from a country that has a history of struggling with floods, yet very dependant on the sea for trade, I know what it's like to have such a complex relationship with the sea. :smallsmile:

Out of interest, what country are you from?

Yikes, no wonder there's huge mythical creatures that create earthquakes in legends! I wonder how fantasy architecture would be built to withstand them...

The Maori built with dried grass and sticks, so not very earthquake proof at all but easy to rebuild. Fantasy cultures would have magical wards and what not I imagine? Maybe blanket charms that create safe zones and need to be maintained at specific points of the year.

The hot water beach sounds almost like a "dig your own free hotspring" site. :smallbiggrin: I don't suppose it's gets used a lot for relaxation or physical therapy?

Haha maybe, but we have so many actual hot springs dedicated to that sort of thing it's not all that needed. I mostly remember it for, as a child, being able to build a sweet sandcastle with it's own 'boiling water' moat.

This sounded like a cool historical tidbit, so I looked it up. It was a bit earlier (accounts vary on the exact year, but it's usually the 3rd century AD), but it often mentions the sky being red in Rome and China. That'd make for a cool timespot to hop off to if time travel got involved...

Haha ah damn I mixed it up with the timing of one of Ruapehu's eruptions, another of our big volcanoes. But yeah, being around for that sort of event would be pretty awesome. We also had a thing called The Pink and White terraces, which was a natural landscape that drew visitors from around the world to come see it, until it to was destroyed and covered by a volcano erupting in 1886.

ArcturusV

2013-01-26, 09:21 AM

Yeah, was thinking of papyrus, just my mind cross wired there for a bit and wrote parchment instead. Though I still consider it an interesting concept for a Fantasy world in that the center of learning and literacy might very well indeed be North Africa as opposed to the usual Greek/Roman stand in, or the Britons as is usually the case.

Sadly though in most real world comparisons if you're talking about South America, Oceania, Australia, etc., you're not going to be talking about trade in terms of industrial goods. It's generally in terms of exotic raw materials that cannot be found at home. Least from the historical standpoint. The closest you really get to industrial goods as a trade tends to be textiles from the middle east/north Africa, and silks from the Orient.

Of course you might also want to consider trade in living species. Foreign animals and exotic creatures/monsters, as that might be one of the big money tickets for any traders crazy enough to try capturing and transporting one. Particularly young ones or breeding pairs that might make a nice addition to some lordling's estate, and can be thoroughly trained up. Play into that typical one upsmanship of nobility. "Oh, you have an elite royal guard guarding your person? How... quaint... here, check out my exotic Panther Warrior from the dark heart of the New World's vast jungle wetlands."

willpell

2013-01-26, 09:37 AM

South America I either think of the Nazca Lines or of the Incas. One of my old favorite stories has always been "The Country of the Blind", which is set in the Andes and strikes me as quintessentially Sudamerican somehow (not that you couldn't do it anywhere they have mountains, but I'd always be thinking of Nunez and Madeina Serota; it just doesn't seem to have the right vibe without the names being in Spanish).

Africa...okay, I try not to be biased, but pretty much everything I hear about the way people manage to survive there seems to reinforce the old Dark Continent stereotype. It doesn't strike me as a continent that a sensible person stays on any longer than can possibly be avoided. (This excludes Egypt, which I think of as belonging more to the mideast than to Africa; the "subsaharan" part always seems redundant to me.)

Australia is awesome though. Love the Aboriginal myth-cycles, what little I've seen of them of course.

Asia is pretty well covered IMO, but I have a special fondness for India, which doesn't tend to get used as much compared to the Orient and the Mideast. Hindu mythology is hilariously bombastic, talking about higher worlds that were destroyed and reborn millions of times; the roleplaying applications are pretty obvious there.

Eurocentrism is fairly minimal in my games, but I can't claim the same of Americanism, just because I've always been a firm believer in our general way of life (minus a few unfortunate sociopolitical, economic, and religious details which I won't get into). Other cultures will always strike me as exotic, I don't think there's really much that can be done about that at this stage in my life.

Morph Bark

2013-01-26, 09:57 AM

Actually, when Europeans were settling New Zealand, the South Island is where most of the Scottish people set up. My family is originally from Scotland, about 4 or 5 generations ago (we're a very young country) and one of our major cities, Dunedin, is still very heavily influenced by Scottish culture. Even the regional accent there is a bit Scottish in respect to how the letter R is pronounced. So that all works perfectly.

Why, that's just a lovely coincedence, that!

Out of interest, what country are you from?

The Netherlands. Curiously enough, we pronounce our Rs more similarly to the Scots than the British and Americans.

The Maori built with dried grass and sticks, so not very earthquake proof at all but easy to rebuild. Fantasy cultures would have magical wards and what not I imagine? Maybe blanket charms that create safe zones and need to be maintained at specific points of the year.

Hmmm... I'm thinking maybe towns built on platforms that can move against the earthquake so that functionally, the town itself will stay in its exact spot and be safe. I think that is actually possible with the technology of today, at least on a small scale. With magic, an isolated culture could likely do the same with some ingenuity.

Haha maybe, but we have so many actual hot springs dedicated to that sort of thing it's not all that needed. I mostly remember it for, as a child, being able to build a sweet sandcastle with it's own 'boiling water' moat.

That sounds like great fun. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, was thinking of papyrus, just my mind cross wired there for a bit and wrote parchment instead. Though I still consider it an interesting concept for a Fantasy world in that the center of learning and literacy might very well indeed be North Africa as opposed to the usual Greek/Roman stand in, or the Britons as is usually the case.

A center of learning and knowledge seems to me like there should be one at least on most continents. The main one I have so far is a city in pseudo-Italy, best compared to Rome or Milan, but I will definitely add something similar to Timbuktu. :smallsmile:

Of course you might also want to consider trade in living species. Foreign animals and exotic creatures/monsters, as that might be one of the big money tickets for any traders crazy enough to try capturing and transporting one. Particularly young ones or breeding pairs that might make a nice addition to some lordling's estate, and can be thoroughly trained up. Play into that typical one upsmanship of nobility. "Oh, you have an elite royal guard guarding your person? How... quaint... here, check out my exotic Panther Warrior from the dark heart of the New World's vast jungle wetlands."

Oh, certainly! I actually thought of making the goblins of my setting be like a kind of mafia specializing in different trades, with one of the families being specialists in the smuggling of exotic creatures. Hm, actually, I guess that's the slight gangster element of the setting: the goblins. Don Cortigrine, Don Corpardune and Don Coroncane.

South America I either think of the Nazca Lines or of the Incas. One of my old favorite stories has always been "The Country of the Blind", which is set in the Andes and strikes me as quintessentially Sudamerican somehow (not that you couldn't do it anywhere they have mountains, but I'd always be thinking of Nunez and Madeina Serota; it just doesn't seem to have the right vibe without the names being in Spanish).

I had forgotten all about the Nazca Lines, I have to admit! Is that "The Country of the Blind" about the Incas, considering its set in the Andes?

Asia is pretty well covered IMO, but I have a special fondness for India, which doesn't tend to get used as much compared to the Orient and the Mideast. Hindu mythology is hilariously bombastic, talking about higher worlds that were destroyed and reborn millions of times; the roleplaying applications are pretty obvious there.

I knew the Hindu had an extensive mythology and some wickedly great gods for all their lore, but this is quite news to me, and awesome news at that! I can definitely see the roleplaying applications indeed.

Eurocentrism is fairly minimal in my games, but I can't claim the same of Americanism, just because I've always been a firm believer in our general way of life (minus a few unfortunate sociopolitical, economic, and religious details which I won't get into). Other cultures will always strike me as exotic, I don't think there's really much that can be done about that at this stage in my life.

That's understandable. "Write what you know", y'know? At least you're self-aware enough to recognize the faults in it. At any rate, I don't mind the cultures of a setting ending up looking exotic overall (except to the people whose culture was used as one of the inspirations for a people or country in it, maybe), as that's part of the point, at least for me. Exploration and discovery are a great part of roleplay, especially for a new setting.

willpell

2013-01-26, 10:37 AM

I had forgotten all about the Nazca Lines, I have to admit! Is that "The Country of the Blind" about the Incas, considering its set in the Andes?

I don't think the Blindians were Inca, I think they were Spanish-speakers from like 1800 whose village was isolated by a landslide. Lemme go to Wikipedia and check....yep, it says they're "settlers fleeing the tyranny of Spanish rulers". Probably a bit earlier than 1800, but definitely not Incas. Though I think it'd be fun to conflate them for fantasy's sake.

I knew the Hindu had an extensive mythology and some wickedly great gods for all their lore, but this is quite news to me, and awesome news at that! I can definitely see the roleplaying applications indeed.

Further reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_creation_myth). Bring a calculator.

Morph Bark

2013-01-26, 11:51 AM

Further reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_creation_myth). Bring a calculator.

:smalleek: Dang! That's intimidatingly huge. Now I'm starting to think the people attempting to combine Lovecraftian inventions with Mesoamerican or Polynesian mythology have been doing it all wrong. If you're going for a "you are insignificant in all of existence", that Hindu cosmology is perfect. I wonder how it could be combined with a scientific worldview of the universe like we have today...

I'm currently also reading up on parts of Europe that aren't used as much in fantasy settings, like Eastern Europe (besides Russia; hence why I brought up the Polish-Hungarian relationship earlier), the Balkans and the Iberian peninsula. Does anyone know, after the Moors were beaten out of Europe and back to Morocco, how things went between Spain/Portugal and Africa? In the east there was a constant struggle against the Arabs, but that was primarily because of the Holy Land thing and later the conquest-hungry Ottomans, but I never heard much about how it went in North-West Africa. It sounds like those relations would be important for that area of Africa.

Draken

2013-01-26, 01:35 PM

South America: Horror. Survival horror and / or Eldrich Abomination Horror. And pyramids and human sacrifice. All connected, of course.

NA: Pulp Detective Stories, Action, Crime, Gangster, Military.

I have been through that already! That is central america, not South America.

There are two pyramid sites in South America, both in the Andes. Both quite ruined.

And hardly survival horror or most kinds of horror, really. The core tales to be told in such a scenario would be:

Playing as locals: Intercultural relationships (war and trade), dealing with the untamed wilds, the supernatural world, etc. But not horror, in general, more man-vs-wild, strength, valor and what have you.

Playing as outsiders: exploration and conquest, pretty much. Also, horrible diseases.

I'm wondering what the best way to describe my setting will end up being if I'll include stuff from a various range of cultures and time periods and items like Damascus Steel. "An anachronistic science fantasy taken to the extreme"? :smalltongue:

Was parchment that much easier to make in North Africa? I thought it was made from animal hides, which are aplenty in Europe. Don't you perhaps mean papyrus, or do you know something more about parchment production?

The concept of mana has always been an intruiging one, though I've known so little of it even today. Could you perhaps expand upon it, if possible? Something like that sounds like it'd be a major contribution to how someone part of a particular culture would act.

The bone thing gives me a great, slightly disturbing idea for a different sort of island culture possible for the setting. Like people having small shrines or temples for some important gods, with the shrine for the god of war and death made of the bones of their enemies. So if you'd come across a settlement of theirs where they didn't have such a shrine, or it was small, they hadn't seen much war. (This is of course much different from what Polynesian tribes do, but it just popped into my head.)

Sounds like a good start. :smallsmile: What's the relevant urban zone?

Lazy bums.

It is the capital, Manaus.

I'll ask someone else about the Inca, particularly because, to be honest, I didn't know they didn't build pyramids (well, since you said it's not your expertise, maybe they did and you just don't know, but I'll find out more later).

There are some pyramids that they may have built in Peru, apparently, actually. Could have been some other civilization, however.

I knew water was a big deal in the Amazon, but not that it was like that! That sounds more like a swamp that happens to be filled with a great amount of trees. Does the Amazon delta include a lot of swampland?

It's not swamp, I was mostly being facetious in the descriptions, it was 3:00 AM and I was about to fall asleep.

Ok, lets be more specific.

The ground here in the Amazon Forest is... Bad. Horrible for agriculture, that is, being mostly thick, orange mud. Much like in the more famous Nile, when the river level goes down, it leaves behind a very rich soil, however.

Anyway, because this soil is horrible, trees stretch their roots above ground, to take nutrients from a layer of humus hailing from fallen leaves, fruit and animal remains.

The ground is not level either, and there are three basic levels measured by the river. The river itself, with its always flooded lowest level. The flood region. And the highest points, which never flood. Swamps don't happen in this area (the horrible, horrible ground mostly doesn't absorb water), but they do exist where the forest meets the plains.

So, I spoke of water above, water to the sides and water underneath. Water above refers to rains. A rain here can drop tons of water in the span of a few hours. Water tot he sides refers to the rivers. xkcd made a comic strip to illustrate this effect recently. Water beneath refers to subterranean water tables. They are everywhere, rainwater flows through rocks or other points that are not mud and gather not that deep underground. Its actually very common for people's houses to use these waterbeds for the water of their homes.

The amazon delta does not, in fact, have swampland, the river is too deep. When it begins to split it doesn't form wetlands, it forms islands. Never been to it however, kind of far from where I live.

The tribes being primitive is easily somewhat-fixed by the inclusion of fantasy elements and the typical DnD mechanics. I'd imagine they'd have stuff like tree houses and powerful nature-focused spellcasters.

Doesn't necessarily deal with the primitiveness. The thing about the amazon is that the ground is awful, any human groups living in such a region will be isolated and the wet and incredibly hot climate will cause people living in small communities to forgo most clothing (which gives off the impression of primitiveness)!

Huh. That's new. But also quite interesting! Snakes with elemental powers, I'm sure I can do something with that that'll make them fit right into the setting as a whole.

Snakes with bodies of fire that live underwater, in fact. Because supernaturaaaal. (~°-°)~

Also, I didn't mention before, but animalistic monsters are fairly few (I guess the wildlife is nasty enough without being given supernatural powers? For instance, nothing gets in the way of army ants. Nothing that values life anyway). Most of the myths would refer to various kinds of humaniform fey. The nasty nature kind of fey, not the mad courtier kind of fey.

Interesting. I kind of would have expected jaguars to be shapeshifters to be honest. Guess that's one expectation turned upside down!

Actually, upon checking a few things, humaniform isn't quite right either. Jaguars stick to their own shape, but are given select supernatural powers. Such as one story of a jaguar that sends its eyes to hunt ahead of it.

Yeah, yesterday I happened to read an article about the... Encantado or something? (It was Brazilian, as I recall.) Man, I knew there've been cases of dolphins doing... stuff to people, but add in shapeshifting and a more cunning approach and it gets worse. :smalleek:

Not so much brazilian as general amazonic. We have a very large portion of the forest, but not it all.

It does, thank you Draken. :smallsmile:

Glad to help.