Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Why is it that ....

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 23 2003, 08:36 AM

Ok, here's the thing. As far as I read it: America is the country that interns the natives. There really isn't a mention of Canada as far as I know being dinks to the Natives. Maybe I'll re-read the history sections but I don't really recall it.

Yet, Canada gets the major *Up the ASS* end of the deal when the natives sit down for peace talks. Once again Ontario seems to be the center of all that is Canada. As a West Coaster this bothers me to no end. We're way better then them darned Torontoites. Magnitudes. (A little inter-country rivalry is a good thing! )

Yet, somehow, Canada really gets it up the arse when it comes to the peace-talks following the Great Ghost dance. We have to give up nearly what - 80% of our Territory (just from a quick glance at the map) including everything west of Hamilton it appears. The states gets to keep Cali and the Seattle Region. Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton get handed over to the natives.

Why is this. This just peeves me to no end now that I am thinking about it. I swear to god one of the writers must have been from Toronto, or the greater metropolitan area there-of.

Yes, this is a whine. I mean, technically if they did genetic testing I'm sure I could remain in my beloved city seeing as though there is rumored native heritage from my fathers side of the family (through my Grandmother.... complicated and incidently hard to prove, although a lot of our family shows genetic traits. I'd love to get my hands on a status card...)

Another thing I don't understand is BC gets divided up between the Salish and the Tsimanian or whatever they are called. That doesn't really make sense seeing as the Haida are kinda the *big* tribe that gets talked about all the time in BC. You'd think they'd have a larger representation. I dunno, that's purely talking outta my ass because I don't know the demographics. Just as a person living here I know which tribe you hear about a lot on the media.

Posted by: Shadow Oct 23 2003, 08:40 AM

I'm not a Canadian history buff, and correct me if I am wrong, but the French did a lot of bad things to Canadian natives when they moved in to that part of the world. IIRC in the late 70's there was a radical native group that took a town hostage demanding the return of the homeland. This would have been on the east coast of Canada.

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 23 2003, 08:48 AM

Allright, an update:

A little re-reading (always a good thing before ranting ... not after ... grrr ) and Canada threw it's natives into internment camps as well. Why we would do this I'm not sure. Seriously, it's been mentioned elsewhere that the creative liberty's the writers took really seem far fetched at times...

Also, I noted that my BBB is starting to fall apart. Grrrrr....

Also the map in my BBB doesn't even include the Tsimisain Council or whatever it's called (middle of BC, Small nation, fighitng with the Salish). ooops on that error...

QUOTE

I'd need to check my history on that as I haven't read about it or heard about it before. I am recalling this from my ass, that you may be referring to the terrorist actions that were happening in Quebec at the time. They were (again memory might be faulty) seperatists from the federal government, not natives calling for the return of their land.

Even if so, why did we get to keep all of Quebec and eventually have it become sovereign land. You'd think the natives would want to ram it up the Quebecois arse as well?

Posted by: Fortune Oct 23 2003, 09:05 AM

I believe that Shadow is referring to the Oka incident in Quebec, which definitely did involve natives.

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 23 2003, 09:14 AM

Thanks for the name, looked it up. 1990 apparently. Interesting.

Posted by: Backgammon Oct 23 2003, 05:26 PM

Oka, 1990.

(keep in mind I was 8 at the time)

I don't know the reasons why, but at some point the Mohawks decide that blocking the bridge that leads into their turf is a Good Idea. But not just with protesters. No, seems like sending armed militia with assault rifles and the likes is a Better Idea. So, the governement sends troops of it's own, to make sure no one does anything messy with said firearms. Ensue standoff that lasts a while (a month? several months?). It is however celebrated that no conflict errupted, despite the mohawks pushing the soldiers. The soldiers have the absolute order (and this is very publicise) to stay VERY chill.
There are incidents of soldiers getting pushed by mohawks into barbed wire and such, and one famous moment caught on tape of a soldier standing at attention with no reaction whatsoever as a mohawk is yelling insults about two inches away from the guy's face. (interesting tidbit: that soldier got a porn movie deal afterwards, where he stood motionless as, well, you get the idea)

So not exactly "mistreatment" material, although I'm sure a few dirty things happened here and there.

Posted by: Velocity Oct 23 2003, 08:59 PM

QUOTE

Backgammon wrote:
I don't know the reasons why, but at some point the Mohawks decide that blocking the bridge that leads into their turf is a Good Idea.

Okay, no meant offense here but... damn, man. Even with disclaimers about your age and ignorance taken into account, this is some pretty inflammatory shit. To locals (like myself) and Natives all across Canada and the US, this happened yesterday. This was one of the most important acts of civil disobedience in recent Canadian history and had profound implications for white-native relations all across North America.

The symbolic value of the protest was much greater than the actual effect of the blockade on existing legislation, but here's a quick rundown of what actually happened:

In 1990, 18 hectares (about 45 acres) of Mohawk ancestral territory--including a hand-planted forest of pine trees and an ancestral graveyard--was to be razed. The town of Oka was hell-bent on letting the local golf club expand its course by nine holes (bringing it to 18), right on top of a Mohawk burial site. Adding insult to injury, a private developer was going to allowed to build several dozen luxury homes around the perimeter of the golf course.

QUOTE

Backgammon wrote:
No, seems like sending armed militia with assault rifles and the likes is a Better Idea.

Oh, man... please, get your facts straight. Mohawk resistance to this project began in March 1990 with about 100 band members marching to the parking lot of the golf club. This led effectively nowhere, with the club owners dismissing the protesters and the media (both provincial and national) basically ignoring the issue entirely. So, in order to attract the attention of the local government, a camp was established to block the expansion of the golf course. The territory of "the pines" was temporarily settled by dozens of Mohawks: men, women, children, elders... citizens.

Yes, there were Warriors there. The Sureté du Québec (read: state troopers) have a long history of parochial and even xenophobic attitudes toward First Nations people living in Québec; everyone was prepared for an attack by the white guys with the guns and the shiny badges.

Make no mistake however: the siege ended when the SQ rushed the blockade, fired tear gas at the unarmed civilians and opened fire with live ammunition on the camp.

Posted by: locomotiveman Oct 24 2003, 12:54 AM

If you look at the map in SONA you will see that the part of Ontario where most "Anglos" live is almost entirely within the UCAS. The only city of any size in Ontario that is not in the UCAS is Thunder Bay, which is in Algonquin-Manitou, giving them access to the Great Lakes. For simplicity lets say everything else south of Lake Nipigon is in the UCAS. Also Winnipeg is in the UCAS as well as basicly everything south of that line, looks like it follows RT 1.

On a related note, is "Band" the Canadian equivilent of the US term "Tribe" or is there a level above or below "Band"

Posted by: Shadow Oct 24 2003, 01:20 AM

This thread should probably die a quiet death now before it turns into some kind of flame war.

(edited for stupidity)

Posted by: Adam Oct 24 2003, 01:44 AM

QUOTE (Nephyte)

The states gets to keep Cali and the Seattle Region.

Not sure what you mean here; California Free State is definately not part of the UCAS.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Oct 24 2003, 02:07 AM

QUOTE (Shadow)

I'm not a Canadian history buff, and correct me if I am wrong, but the French did a lot of bad things to Canadian natives when they moved in to that part of the world.

You're wrong. Of all the european powers that moved into North America, the french had the best attitude tyowards the Indians. Since they only had a few settlements with lots of wilderness between them (basically Quebec, Montreal and New Orleans on the mainland) the French learned very quickly that if treated decently, the Indians made fine neighbors. After 1757 when Canada fell to the Brits, they learned how the French had kept the peace and adoptewd the same policy of actually keeping the treaties they made, amazing how little it takes to place "savages."

That's why during the revolution the Indians predominantly sided with the British, the British had learned form the French to respect indian lands, the Americans, like Daniel Boone were interested in taking the indian land and to hell with them and the treaties.

I think in SR that Canada stripped of Quebec with militant NAN in the midlands was just a rump around the industrial areas and so couldn't stand alone.

Posted by: Shadow Oct 24 2003, 02:42 AM

If that were true SF (and I am not saying it isn't) then why do things like Oka happen in modern day Canada? And Oka was not the event I was thinking of btw, the one I was talking about hapened in the late 70's.

If Velocity is correct, then Police officers of the state opened fire on unarmed civillians. That just doesn't happen without a real good racial background.

After a little research I found this article in Washington Magazine,

QUOTE

Thus, colonists of the different European countries never followed a consistent policy towards the Indians. Instead they sought close relations with local native societies that controlled trade in a valuable commodity, such as furs or hides. But when the Indians had no such resource, colonists typically had no qualms about attacking them or driving them away to gain their lands.

The colonists of French Canada certainly maintained friendly relations with the native societies of that region; however, in the Mississippi territory, French settlers massacred Natchez villages and drove the survivors from the area. Dutch traders at Fort Orange—later named Albany—traded peacefully with surrounding Indian peoples for several decades. But Dutch settlers around New Amsterdam—later New York City—attacked local native societies to eliminate them. Finally, while English colonists in Connecticut massacred the Pequot people, they carried on a lively trade in deerskins with local tribes in the Carolinas. When few deer remained, however, these English pitted local tribes against each other to obtain slaves to sell.

I think the idea that any one country always treated indians well is probably inaccurate. your french so of course you want to think you are better than your past. I am an American and I do the same.

You can read the full article http://washington-state-magazine.wsu.edu/archive/Spring-2003/resilient3.html

Posted by: Nephyte Oct 24 2003, 02:57 AM

Well this generally has nothing to do with the topic as it was meant to be, I'll roll with the ball the thread is taking.

QUOTE

I have to dispute that assertation. After doing some searching on the net last night regarding the Oka dispute and reading what various sources I could find, it mentioned in some articles the history of the French in Canada and the native Mohawks. Apparently they fought quite a few times in the late 1600's with the French losing the battles.\

QUOTE

History shows the Mohawk as an undefeated nation. Although there has never been colonial recognition of the Great Peace or the Wampum Belt Of The Iroquois Confederacy, the most recent attempt to invade Iroquois territory previous to the Oka incidents was by Frontenac in 1697, with the Mohawks emerging as victors following a successful ambush which freed 280 Mohawk prisoners.

The costs have always been high for the colonial suppression of the Iroquois, who killed almost half the population of New France in two months in 1689. A standoff between the French and the Iroquois occurred over the issue of the release of Mohawk slaves (serfs), and ended in 1697 with the soldiers fleeing. No amount of money, religious brainwashing, or torture could defeat the natives. Costs for the Oka incident are also alarming.

That's what I found last night while looking up the Oka Incident. Which would suggest that the french weren't all that wonderful in their dealings with the natives of the area.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 24 2003, 03:41 AM

The French treated the American Indians better than the majority of other European colonists, not least because most of the French weren't colonists, just traders; they wanted to get rich, which they could do without a lot of land taken from the AmerInds.
On the other hand, better!=well.

~J

Posted by: Stonecougar Oct 24 2003, 09:38 AM

Am I the only white guy here sick of hearing whining about how we owe the indians a goddamn living 'cuz we WON? Get over it. The Scots and Welsh got their asses trounced by the English and conquered. The English got pounded by William the Conqueror and his Normans. The Russians have been conquered thousands of times. Tibet got conquered by China. CONQUERING HAPPENS. The era in which the atrocities committed against the Native Americans, 'cuz I'm sure some politically correct weenie is gonna insist they be called that, was an era of expansion. Any time Human Settlement A attempts to expand, eventually they're gonna run into Human Settlement B, and more likely than not, they're gonna fight. My ancestors had black powder and smallpox, while theirs only had sharp sticks. History is in the past. Get over it and get on with your life.

*Exhales* There. I've said it. I'm gonna go duck into my foxhole before the flames erupt...

*Note: I have nothing against Native Americans or any other racial subgroup. I just hate whiners.*

Posted by: Traks Oct 24 2003, 12:42 PM

Well, our country has been conquered countless times during 700 years, due to geographical disposition (we regained independence in 1990)
Of course we are white, but still blood was running wide, especially during WW II, with our country's people fighting on both sides, brother against brother.

And while many people in our country whine about those times (and sometimes they have a point), you must go forward, dealing with today's situation. So, taking no side, seems that one group of people were righteosly annoyed when other people wanted to step on something important to them.

People like to whine about their own problems and do not care about other people's problems. If it would be way round, indians would be called savages.
It is so easy to put a label on something and feel superior.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Oct 24 2003, 01:01 PM

I never said the french were the perfect guests, I just said of the european powers the French were the best behaved. To compare what happened in the 1600's when the area was being settled to the 1740's when the colonies were established is really not fair. THe British in the Colonies of New Haven, Springfield and Connecticut engaged in a "defensive war" that exterminated the indians in southern New England.

To bring this back to topic-

The French in Quebec became allies with the Hurons(I'm not sure what the modern name of the is) who were enemies of the Mohawk/Iriquios of what is now New York. There was already a tension between these two indian nations which the British and french were perfectly happy to feed creating native auxileries for their wars. When the French were defeated in 1757 their allies, the hurons suffered as well and when the Americans beat the British in 1782, many Mohawks, along with loyalist whites, fled to Canada to keep under the Crown. The mohawks took over lands that had been their enemies but don't have the same tradition of of good relations on the land as earlier tribes did. That is why in the modern age you have the occasional rebellion- based on money. As I understand it (but I'll readily accept I don't follow the issue closely) the commonest complaint is that the Indians sell cigarettes to whites without the taxes, meaning the gov't is losing revenue. This has nothing to do with land claims and broken promises as you have between the American governments and indian nations.

Now we would have to see how do Indians in Canada's western provinces feel. What was their history? It might be that they were ambivilant but more militant United States indians, like the Souix, seeing huge tracks of sparsly inhabbited land and not respecting the white man's border between the US and Canada pressed their control north. With out the industrial force and population of Quebec, Canada may not have had the muscle to hold 2000 miles of prarie and mountains. The populations there may not have been large enough to worry about.
Now as to why the far west coast didn't become the Seattle-Vancouver metroplex, I don't know. The old 1st ed game said that several of the Seattle area tribes were militant. RL news does have some tension in the region with indians pressing their claims to "rights" like the right to hunt whales as a tribal tradition, and then go out with motor boats and rifles. So maybe they were too militant and wanted some big city. Remeber the archetype for the "Former tribal warrior" in Sprawl Sites. one of his quotes is "we've got cities now, you're cities in fact."

Posted by: Lilt Oct 24 2003, 01:28 PM

QUOTE (Stonecougar)

Umm... There was a debait on who treated the indians the best but I don't think anyone here was saying the indians were owed anything. Anyway; isn't the disgruntled / oppressed naitive population bitching and fighting back (beit with more pointy sticks, legal action, or publicity campaigns) also one of the things that happens when you conquer somewhere?

On a side note: The welsh were more often allied with the english than against them (welsh longbowmen were the most feared on the battlefield). And Traks; what country is yours?

Posted by: Backgammon Oct 24 2003, 01:29 PM

I apologize, Velocity. I did not indeed have all my facts straight.

Posted by: Traks Oct 24 2003, 01:47 PM

QUOTE (Lilt)

And Traks; what country is yours?

Small country in middle Europe, one of Baltic States, called Latvia.
We got invaded by all the big countries near us, starting from Germans who brought christianity, Poland, Sweden, Russia, even some French were coming through when going to Moscow. Our history is filled with much blood and pain.

Posted by: Cray74 Oct 24 2003, 02:38 PM

Canada is a "dink" to natives, following in the US's foot steps but without as much press time in the books.

Yeah, Canada lost a lot of land, but at least it kept most of its population and industry. I'm not sure it was treated as badly as the US.

The US hemmoraged (sp) over 30 million in California (Canada's entire population, give or take), then tens of millions more to the CAS, millions in Hawaii, and millions in Alaska. Tens of millions were displaced and trillions of dollars of infrastructure, businesses, and industry were lost throughout Injun-claimed lands. A few volcanoes erupting can get major coverage in the books, but the economic devastation of the NAN secessions isn't even mentioned.

And somehow, maybe 2 million Native Americans managed all that.

Well, it makes for an interesting setting, just like having Western nuclear power plants inexplicably melt down helps along the dystopic feel of things.

Posted by: Siege Oct 24 2003, 02:40 PM

Plot hook! Plot hook!

Serial nuclear plant melters?

-Siege

Posted by: Velocity Oct 24 2003, 05:46 PM

QUOTE

Backgammon wrote:
I apologize, Velocity. I did not indeed have all my facts straight.

Apology accepted; thanks for that.

I apologize for my condescending tone. I re-read my post today and realized I may have come off as a bit of a hardass and that wasn't really my intention. I just wanted to clarify the facts before the discussion progressed too far.

Posted by: Talia Invierno Oct 24 2003, 07:20 PM

Incidentally (re-tracking this topic) Oka is part of SR canon.

California used to be part of the UCAS post-NAN before it decided to go independent. Québec was the opposite - independent before NAN.

Although I do agree with the original point: the division of native lands and which parts of Canada ended up joining the UCAS seems not to have too much relevance to the actualities of the various regions.

Posted by: lodestar Oct 24 2003, 11:25 PM

Especially since Canada is well on the way to giving back most of the lands to the natives anyways. Take a look at the creation of Nunavut. (which was almost namned "Bob" but that's another story) In Alberta, B.C. NWT and the Yukon, Native run industries regularly compete profitably with others. Unfortunately, though, time is running out for the North American native, as their "race" is quite simply being bred out. With ever increasing immigration to Canada, Natives are becoming ever increasing minority, especially full blood natives. Hell, I have native blood! Only one thirty-second, but hey, someday maybe all Canadians might have some of that melting pot heritage. That's the big improbability for Canada being divided up by the NANs, we'll all be native.

Posted by: Shadow Oct 24 2003, 11:33 PM

I belive in SR terms when NAN was created you had to be able to claim 1/8th blood in order to move into there lands.

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Oct 25 2003, 12:13 AM

Canada got screwed because Americans created Shadowrun, and how often have Americans given a damn about Canada?

Posted by: Kanada Ten Oct 25 2003, 12:17 AM

Canada and America got screwed, the NAN got screwed, the Mexicans got screwed, the Japanese got screwed, the South Americans got screwed, the Europeans got screwed, the World got screwed.

This is Shadowrun.

Got Screwed?

Posted by: locomotiveman Oct 25 2003, 12:31 AM

The question of winning only counts when you play by the rules you set down after the previous game is over.

Posted by: last_of_the_great_mikeys Oct 25 2003, 01:35 AM

Hmmm...my guess as to why Canada gets the short end of the Treaty of Denver stick: FASA wanted to market the game in the USA. Kinda hard to do that if Canada is the remaining North American Entity after the big division and redistribution of lands.

Seriously, would Shadowrun have done so well if Canada had absorbed the USA into the UCAS? I doubt it. One thing I have noticed about Americans (and believe it or not, though it's annoying at times I think it's a good thing) is they are very supportive of their country and don't like when it's portrayed poorly. National pride is a Good Thing™.

However, note that the guys gave Canada first name billing in UCAS. I guess that was the pacifying token that let us Canadians not get too upset about our beloved country being annexed!

Posted by: Talia Invierno Nov 3 2003, 06:53 PM

Two other adoptions would be the addition of "security of the person" as a constitutional priority - doesn't work too well juxtaposed with Freedom! - and the legal acceptability of same sex marriages (from the SSG).

Posted by: Backgammon Nov 3 2003, 06:58 PM

QUOTE (Kanada Ten)

I completely agree with Kanada

Posted by: Synner Nov 3 2003, 07:06 PM

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ Oct 25 2003, 12:13 AM)

Canada got screwed?

The Netherlands are half-submerged by toxic waters, Germany and France get a sizable bite taken out of them by a nuclear meltdown (the latter also gets pansy nobles) and have to face the Red Army alone, China breaks up into half a dozen warring states, the UK is such a toxic and fascist hell hole it isn't even funny, Japan gets to be the imperialistic genocidal badguy of the 21st century, Poland and Eastern Europe get trampled in EuroWar1, Greece and the Balkans get trampled in EuroWar2, Mexico reverts to a place where the state religion iuncludes blood sacrifices, Turkey's the stage of a religious civil war, Libya gets nuked, Brazil is taken over by cabal of Dragons, Ireland by a cabal of Elves, Africa...well let's leave poor Africa for now.

To me it seems like Canada got off easy.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 3 2003, 07:27 PM

Don't forget Australia and the manastorms.

~J