Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Nexushound Sep 3 2010, 04:46 AM

Oi Chums,

I stand corrected. Please disregard the following message. Or read it and find out for yourself that Slavery did indeed continue in Nigeria until 1936.

Oi Chums,

I was just perusing my digital copy of the 6th world Almanac. I have come to accept some minor typos here and there in all Shadowrun titles but this particular instance made me sit up and say "WHAT?"

[b]6th World Almanac pg. 110 Kingdoms of Nigeria

During the 1800's the area was taken over by the British. Becoming an official part of the British Empire in 1901. It was during this time that the slave trade flourished in Nigeria, until it was abolished in 1936.

Uh...what? Slavery was finally and completely abolished throughout the British Empire by 1840.

I don't mind typos, but historical inacuracies like that are too much. How bout a little bit of a reveiw by the editors? [/b]

Posted by: Critias Sep 3 2010, 04:54 AM

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_world_history/v007/7.1blue02.html EDIT: http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521447027 Sorry, had multiple browser windows open as I was frantically trying to remember the name of the book, and then when I did remember it, I didn't realize I was linking to a book review, not the book itself.

The sad fact is the slave trade was never really abolished in parts of Africa. T6W Almanac is pretty spot on with the generally agreed-upon 1936, for Nigeria, though. World History's a depressing subject, if you let it be.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Sep 3 2010, 04:56 AM

What he said.

Posted by: Nexushound Sep 3 2010, 04:58 AM

Oi Chums,

So in 1936 the Brits were still buying and selling slaves?

Posted by: Nexushound Sep 3 2010, 04:59 AM

Oi Chums,

I followed your link. Who was selling and who was buying?

Posted by: Nexushound Sep 3 2010, 05:00 AM

Oi Chums,

My mistake. How can I remove my post?

Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 3 2010, 05:01 AM

Like all broad questions of history, the answer is "it's complicated".

And to clarify, it's also hard to pin down in this case. Post US civil war, a lot of the trade shifted to smaller markets.

Posted by: KageZero Sep 3 2010, 05:02 AM

Uh... Hate to break it to you, but it's correct. Nigeria did not become a British colony until the late 19th/early 20th century and, although it wasn't anything like the slave trade before, it wasn't officially outlawed until 1936 in Northern Nigeria. From the BBC "Story of Africa" (about half-way down):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1624_story_of_africa/page56.shtml

Posted by: Critias Sep 3 2010, 05:17 AM

The Slave Trade Act of 1807 made slave taking theoretically illegal throughout the British Empire, yes, but that doesn't mean it magically stopped. Much like Prohibition in America over a hundred years later, enforcing that law was something else entirely. Making slaving illegal simply increased the demand (to some), increased the profits (to some), and increased the danger involved in the trade itself. Initially it was a $100 fine for every slave found aboard a trader vessel -- which, pretty horrifically, meant trader captains throwing shackled slaves into the sea to reduce their fine, like folks might throw a baggy of pot out a car window today, before getting pulled over -- but around 1825 (I think) they actually included slavery under piracy laws, making it punishable by death. The Royal Navy kept itself pretty busy off Africa's coasts for a pretty long time.

Part of the problem of enforcement was that slaves were still held under the Slave Trade Act, they just weren't supposed to be getting any new ones. It wasn't until the mid 1830's (I want to say '34?) that Great Britain actually passed an Abolition Act. Somewhat ironically (and very "British" of them, given how traditional the apprenticeship/servitude was), this emancipation was just a transition to indentured servitude, not outright liberation; some Confederate leaders (decades later) would hypothesize about a similar "staggered emancipation" possibility (though they were, uh, "shouted down" at best by their peers). I think the official plan was for a three or four year servitude, then total freedom...legally.

Even so, after the 1830's slavery still existed in Great Britain, the same way back-woods stills still existed in the Appalachians during Prohibition in the U.S. I don't want to step on toes or get too political (rather than historical), here, but traditionally speaking Islam has accepted the institution of slavery, and Northern Nigeria is, even today, strongly Muslim, culturally. Just like the stereotypical Hatfields and McCoys clung to their moonshine despite what some big-city sheriff tried to tell them, slavery stuck around for a good, long, time -- and, like I said earlier, is in many ways still around today -- in much of Nigeria, especially the north.

It really wasn't until 1936 that slavery was legally abolished throughout Nigeria. The buyers might not have been British the entire time, and those that were weren't legitimate businessmen...but it was still happening.

EDIT TO ADD: And in case I'm coming off as racist, please, I certainly don't mean to be. I-75, running north-south through much of the continental United States, is a major slave trade route today. Slavery as an institution is dead and buried, but that doesn't mean it's not a thriving, horrific, illegal business. I'm not trying to pick on Africa, Nigeria, Muslims, or anyone else; or, at least, I'm not trying to do so by pointing fingers and claiming my own culture is innocent of any wrongdoing.

Posted by: Nexushound Sep 3 2010, 05:28 AM

Oi Critias,

Thank you for giving me the whole story. I edited my original post. Both you and The 6WA are indeed correct.

Posted by: Critias Sep 3 2010, 05:32 AM

Erm, sorry, by the wway. I didn't mean to get that long-winded. My undergrad academic advisor is something of an expert on Africa in World History, so I ended up picking up a little more about the subject than I ever wanted to.

Life was a lot simpler when I could think of Africa as that blighted rock, the mysterious and savage "Dark Continent" of Tarzan books, and just go about my military historian day, worrying about Western Civ. like everyone else.

Posted by: Neraph Sep 3 2010, 05:43 AM

Interestingly I saw some information that actually claimed that all the slaves that America bought we bought from Islamic groups in Africa. Also, the slave trade is alive and well throught the world, albeit with a new name - human trafficking. An estimated 40% of the worlds' human trafficking passes through the D/FW metroplex in Texas.

That aside, it is also altogether possible that the seeming difference may stem from the fact that Shadowrun Earth is not neccessarily Real-World Earth, and the fact that these dates worked out is just coincidence.

Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 3 2010, 05:51 AM

For real =/ When I was in grad school, I saw a couple studies done that strongly correlated levels of cynicism and general dislike of humanity with the years of education in Political Science and History.

I think the point when I became a misanthrope was when I was doing my undergrad thesis on human trafficking in SE Asia. Further study has not improved my opinion ><

Of course, on the bright side (I guess?) it all makes for excellent backstory for Shadowrun... my runners love going pink mohawk against traffickers.

Posted by: Critias Sep 3 2010, 05:56 AM

I wouldn't go so far as to say all, but I'd say a lot. I can't say for sure, off the top of my head, which ones went to America and which went elsewhere, but I'm sure we can't blame slavery entirely on African Muslims.

The whole...thing. The Atlantic Slave Trade? It's mind-blowing. Lots of us watched Roots in high school, or something, and have spent our lives being told how horrible it was to any given African getting shipped across, sure. We know it sucked. We're told how miserable it was, and how cruel it was, and how Honest Abe flew down and saved the day, and all that.

What we don't hear about -- most of us -- is what it did to Africa. You can actually track the population shifts, the migration patterns, as the people of the world's second largest continent, over time, were pulled and concentrated on the coasts. It was like a weird vacuum, all along the edges of the continent, where slave traders were sucking everyone, then deporting them, and others stayed there (on the trade routes) to profit from it.

Technological advancements came (by way of gunpowder, mostly) from European powers, and was given to appropriately sympathetic African rulers as a means of legitimizing their rulership...traded, inevitably, for slaves. The rulers then used the gunpowder to stamp out dissent in their country, often by shipping away malcontents and rival groups, who they could trade for...more gunpowder weapons.

So the kings who were willing to "play ball" (and some of them had to convert to Christianity, too, which is why it's not fair to say all of them were Muslim) got more and more powerful, built larger kingdoms with technology their rivals didn't have...and, once they were big enough, started to drain the population of the inland areas through force of arms. The ones who wouldn't play ball got pacified, either by those who would or by the Europeans themselves. It's not fair -- to any group -- to try and pin the whole thing on colonialists or on Africans (Muslim or otherwise) or on the folks buying the slaves here in America or the Caribbean or whatever, because the simple truth is the system wouldn't have been in place without all three groups. You needed the supply and the demand to keep it going for as long as it was.

Still, it's creepy stuff, imagining that sort of population shift due to something like greed and slavery.

Creepier still when you read up on the numbers involved about how many folks are still being bought and sold, today.

To get us (mildly) back on topic in Shadowrun, though? The same thing should be going on there, in spades. Folks without SINs don't exist on paper, remember, so anyone brutal enough to want to can do just about anything they wish. The balkanization, SURGE, etc, that runs rampant throughout T6W means even more grudges, even more dehumanization of "others" going on, and even more likelihood of folks being willing to engage in slave trafficking. Toss in the wars and other chaos-causing events they're so fond of -- nothing provokes monstrous crime like destabilization -- and you've got a world ripe for this sort of thing.

Some of my most popular shadowrun games for my old/regular group were dealing with unscrupulous Triad folks rounding up slaves from the SINless (for Bunraku parlors, or just old fashioned low-tech sex slavery), and a few more dealt heavily with Tir refugees pouring into Seattle thanks to the chaos back home. Not every game is going to want to focus on stuff that gritty, mind...but the source material's there, for anyone that wants to let their PC's have the certain moral high ground for a few jobs, that's for sure!

Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 3 2010, 06:11 AM

Most scholars believe that the slave trade is also a major part of why Africa is so Balkanized today (and in turn, in Shadowrun); it turned tribe on tribe, and slavery went from being a byproduct of war, to the cause of war =/

Anyway, I'm going to hush now, hopefully this is coming across as the "historical background for Shadowrun" it's meant as.

Posted by: Critias Sep 3 2010, 06:39 AM

I think it's fairly on-topic, myself, as long as we look for ways to actively use it in a game, and we're not casting insults around while we talk about the real-world history. I'm not a mod, though, so if Grinder comes in here and yells at us with purple text, I apologize in advance.

The truth is, I can see much of the same stuff happening in as "modern" a time as Shadowrun. There will always be haves and have-nots -- even moreso in T6W! -- and the have-nots will be, if they're desperate enough, willing to do whatever the haves tell them to do. There's still going to be oil and other natural resources for the haves to bicker and squabble over in Africa, there's still going to be superior technology on the side of corporate "colonists," and there's still going to be locals who are willing to work for them, no matter how gritty or brutal the task.

Look at Nigeria, in fact (the very country that sparked the thread), right there in T6W Almanac. Outside interests are there for oil, while "over thirty ethnic groups, speaking over 200 languages," are all scattered throughout that little corner of the continent. It mentions some forming "partnerships" with the corporations, just like, historically, some local kingdoms affiliated themselves with the European colonists for a mutually beneficial (though not fairly so) business arrangement.

You could run whole campaigns out of Lagos, and not have enough bullets for everyone the PC's might end up crossing...and that's WITHOUT really picking a side!

Posted by: Mäx Sep 3 2010, 06:50 AM

Thats the kind of campaing that makes you wish 4:th edition had the bulk discount belted ammo from older editions for sale

Posted by: Critias Sep 3 2010, 07:04 AM

On the bright side, in some places you can trade a sack of grain or a couple chickens for an AK in real life, so in game it should be just as easy (and that's not even counting just the tried and true "picking up this blood-spattered one that my former opponent doesn't need any more and graciously gave me as a gift!") method...so everyone knows what specialization to take in Automatics.

Posted by: Grinder Sep 3 2010, 08:32 AM

We mods are watching this thread closely, of course, but so far everything's cool. Discussing a topic like this is a fine line to walk, so please continue to be careful what and how you post.

Posted by: CanRay Sep 3 2010, 12:21 PM

There's also another form of "Slavery" that's still legal today, and probably in the Sixth World as well: "Indentured Service".

OK, so a family from Craplakistan wants to go to America because of "The American Dream" (Sorry folks, dream's over, America woke up and found out that she got rolled). They can't get refugee status through the woefully underfunded UCAS and CAS Embassies, so they contact Uncle Vicktor who spent every dime he had going over, and now has a "Garment Factory" in Seattle.

He pays their ticket to come over to the UCAS, endorses them as new citizens, and gives them a good job at under minimum wage to pay off their ticket and learn English (And Spanish, or French, or Japanese, or Chinese, or Hindi, or whatever) and acclimate to a new society.

No way at all that can be abused, can it?

Posted by: sabs Sep 3 2010, 12:44 PM

This is how the Chinese Triads do a big chunk of their Human Trafficking.
They help people "come across' to the use, with huge debts. Then they have to work to pay them off. And you do the work they want you to do, or you die. So if you're old, or ugly, you work in sweat shops. If you're young and relatively pretty, you work in 'massage' parlors.

I'm sure that Latin Americans using Coyotes to come to America end up with similar issues.
They end up working for gangs, or cartels, or whom ever.

Eastern European Criminals use a more direct route in Europe. They kidnap young girls, and get them hooked on smack.

Posted by: pbangarth Sep 3 2010, 12:58 PM

As a further historical note, Western Europe raided Eastern Europe for slaves at least as far back as the Bronze Age (before Roman times). Ever notice the similarity between "slave" and "Slav"? There's a reason for that.

Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 3 2010, 01:04 PM

Yeah, some of the uses indentured service is put to is pretty sickening. In the US. it's technically illegal, though in the situation you described, while they won't enforce the agreement between you and Uncle Vicktor, the sudden loss of a job is still going to mean you get shipped home. Pretty much, this is true in just about any case where an immigrant is employed, sadly. There's just a huge power imbalance when a green card is involved.

But there are plenty of places in the world where it's still explicitly legal, and put to horrifying uses. Gah, I was going to talk about my thesis a bit, but I can already feel the rage coming back. Needless to say, when you read interviews with parents who sold their second daughter into what's effectively slavery so they could afford a new TV... &*^%(*&, it makes you wonder if humanity wouldn't be better off being subjugated by dragons. One thing that's true in both the real world and the 6th world; the second humans get any power, their first instinct is to abuse the hell out of it.

Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi Sep 3 2010, 03:46 PM

Yeah, this happens in Brazil too. Farmers and peasants from the Northeast region (one of the poorest) are "invited" to work on a farm in another state (usually the Midwest) and when they arrive there, they find out that they can't leave the farm until all debts for the travel and housing are paid over. Since they can't leave the farm, they must buy their food and stuff from the farmer who sells them for HUGE prices and keeps your salary at minimum wage, this means your debt is always increasing and you may never leave.
Federal Police has been trying to end this kind of thing but it is a tough job, specially because some of the farmers have a lot of political influence or are congressmen themselves...

Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 3 2010, 03:54 PM

Hwha? That's been outlawed under Article 4 of the UN's declaration of Human Rights. That should be all the Brazilian legislature needs.

Unless we're talking 6th World, in which case it's all Amazonia and everyone's happy down there.

Posted by: pbangarth Sep 3 2010, 04:55 PM

But, if as Brazilian_Shinobi alludes the legislature has people in it who profit from the scheme, not much is going to change.

Indentured servitude has a long and time-honoured history, and won't likely go away for a long time yet. And when the SIN-less are there for the picking....

Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 3 2010, 04:57 PM

Ha ha ha!

SINless aren't people!

Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi Sep 3 2010, 04:59 PM

Human Rights?!?! What is this? Unfortunately, Human Rights can only exist where there is law...

Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi Sep 3 2010, 05:00 PM

Which makes you wonder why Ghouls are...

Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 3 2010, 05:01 PM

Human Rights

-noun
1. fundamental rights, esp. those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to speak, associate, work, etc.

2. colliquial 'feel good' term to fool the people of the world into believing they matter

Posted by: Neraph Sep 3 2010, 05:17 PM

For my credit I said that I read something that claimed, not that I believe.

Also, I'd like to see how Dubai is for Shadowrun. It's fairly Shadowrun in RL today - sounds perfect for the base of operations for SR-ing in the near-ish future.

Posted by: sabs Sep 3 2010, 05:19 PM

Isn't Dubai part of the New Caliphate in the Shadowrun universe?
Super extremist Islamic nutjobs, killing meta-humans and mages as spawns of satan?

Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 3 2010, 05:24 PM

I thought the Caliphate got shut down after the delayed one-two-three of Aden, Ibn Isa's death and subsequent resurrection, and his outing as a master shedim.

Posted by: sabs Sep 3 2010, 05:31 PM

I am not.. up on my Middle East Shadowrun time line stuff.

So I honestly don't know.

Posted by: Dumori Sep 3 2010, 05:31 PM

In the 6th world SINless are all set to be slaves/sweatshop workers. They have no legal status or rights it's illegal for them to exist in a sense.

Posted by: sabs Sep 3 2010, 05:34 PM

I always figured that Human Trafficking was rampant in Shadowrun.

Gangers who control a Barrens neighborhood.
Yaks/Mafia/Triads running sinless sweatshops
Corporations offering SiNS to low-cost workers, all they have to do is transfer to the new Siberia Arcology. They get there, and sure, they have SiNs.. but no rights, no where to go, noone to turn to. They're effectively slave labor.

Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 3 2010, 05:37 PM

Yeah, it's actually mentioned in quite a few places. Vice talks about it a lot, especially.

Posted by: CanadianWolverine Sep 3 2010, 05:48 PM

When I read the words "wage slave", I think of indentured servitude, so even if you are a character with a SIN, still can't seem to escape it. IRL, people still willingly get credit cards and loans/mortgages that apparently bring wallstreet to its knees and empty entire communities when the bank starts slinging paper and telling the cops what to do, so makes me think one is just being more polite about the debt situation than is experienced in the shadows, perhaps even the threat being that if you don't pay up on this extortion *cough* interest rate hikes then they will reduce you to the level of the SINless lifestyle and all the hardships that entails with its less polite methods of indentured servitude.

So, I find myself after reading this thread of picturing say, Humanis Policlub members owning slaves, probably meta-human. Gang/Criminal syndicate leaders and their lieutenants probably make their members indebted to them as well, the nicest ones allowing it to be a sort of apprenticeship. Heck, there are probably SINless relatives that send their children to go "work" for their SINned relatives just so they have at least something soy-based to eat and live under a roof in a neighbourhood with slightly less overt crime.

Whoa, maybe that is how many SINless shadowrunners learn their specialized trade, unless they were lucky enough to have runners as parents who are capable of teaching them, they would instead send their children to be a servant/slave of some local expert, other than the ones who are self taught survivalists. Would explain why a runner would value their freedom so much, seeing everyone else around them, even those with SINs, essentially being slaves to the Haves. Find myself thinking of the movie A Knight's Tale for Street Samurias...

Posted by: hobgoblin Sep 3 2010, 06:21 PM

I am reminded of the story on Somali pirates where one lady have invested in one of the crews by way of providing them with a RPG. A weapon she had gotten as part of a divorce settlement.

Posted by: hobgoblin Sep 3 2010, 06:41 PM

This amplified by the corps not paying their workers in nuyen or similar national currency, but in corp scrip.


This brings to mind a theory about the place of the gun in US culture beyond the obvious constitutional one. When people came to the American colonies, they found themselves with a freedom not found in europe. That of abundant game, and no lord of the land. This meant that any man with a gun could fend for himself and answer to no one. This rugged individualism then continues on from the frontiersman, to the cowboy, and in cyberpunk may be echoed in the runner riding a hog or crotch rocket; free of any responsibility for anything other then his own survival.

This then reflected in things like coffin hotels (a element that seems to have been toned down somewhat in SR4). A place perfect for a runner living out of a backpack, or gym bag, to spend the night between jobs.

Posted by: CanRay Sep 3 2010, 07:52 PM

Ah, Corporate Script:

Posted by: KageZero Sep 3 2010, 08:08 PM

Some thoughts as I play catchup:

"Bunraku" parlors - Yeah, I think slavery still exists in SR.

Dubai was detailed in Corp Enclaves, p. 114 as a shining gem in the hell of the Middle East. (It's Shadowed side, though, is as dark as any other. With indentured servants, fundamentalists, criminals and activists.)

Posted by: TommyTwoToes Sep 3 2010, 08:17 PM

And they only apply to Humans, you trog skum.

Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi Sep 3 2010, 09:47 PM

I find it funny, ok, not funny, but amusing that while the world is as dark as a black cat with its eyes closed inside a pitch-black room filled with coal there are some people and institutions that try to make a better life for everyone. In Running Wild is mentioned that the UN tried to pass a "Sentient Rights Act" but was shot down by one of the countries with veto powers of the UNSC during a 'closed doors meeting'. By the way, I wonder, which countries are permanente members of the SC now? Also, do corps participate in the UN or they have their own separate little club (the Corporate Council)?

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Sep 3 2010, 10:16 PM

The corps do not participate in the UN except through their national proxies.

I don't know if you've looked around but the world has always been a suprisingly bleak place and there have just as eternally been those that would stand up and try and change things. Often they don't fare very well but they've usually been there.

Posted by: CanRay Sep 3 2010, 10:26 PM

Very few people that start revolutions for good reasons survive long enough to see them through.

Hell, those that aren't doing it for good reasons don't survive them either...

And I know who to firmly blame for the bleakness of the world, those people with bleak souls that seek to make the world in their image, Bureaucrats.

Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 3 2010, 10:56 PM

I do have to add that I can think of at least one modern exception. You can mock his software all day long, but what he's doing now is incredible.

It's like the answer to every college bull session of "what would happen if the rich tried to really make a difference, instead of posing for pictures at charity balls".

The answer: well, it remains to be seen, I suppose, but from appearances it's - a hell of a lot.



Edit: I mean, I may be a cynical bastard, but it's hard to ignore something on that scale.

Posted by: CanRay Sep 3 2010, 11:05 PM

Got the 6WA on order now, so I'll have to wait and see what I find. 'Course, I was never good at history, so it'll probably not be a lot.

I'm still trying to figure out how Quebec is still stable as a country, however... Maybe 6WA answers that?

Posted by: Sengir Sep 4 2010, 12:31 AM

Let's just say that claims like "followers of $religion were the culprits behind slavery" are classics of political and religious agitation, by 2070 you'll probably find Humanis AR-pamphlets decrying the role of elves in slave trade and how they will do it again unless you vote Brackhaven

Posted by: suoq Sep 4 2010, 01:28 AM

The silly part is, we are the rich. We can afford a computer, an internet connection, and have the free time to participate in an online forum about a role playing game.

Now many of us may volunteer, donate, contribute, etc. I'm not saying we don't. But I would be really surprised if the people less well off didn't think we ought to be doing more, just as we look at people better off and think they ought to be doing more.

Posted by: Jaid Sep 4 2010, 09:17 PM

i find it even more amusing that the corporate court passed similar legislation which the UN shot down...

Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi Sep 4 2010, 10:45 PM

Oh yeah, forgot about that. Which makes me wonder why the corps would this. What possible benefit can they possibly have to give full citizenship to non-metahumans sentient creatures? I mean, why would they like to have a Ghoul as employee?

Posted by: Mäx Sep 4 2010, 10:48 PM

Ghouls not a "non metahuman sentient"
Centaurs,Pixies and Nagas are.
And Evo allready gives them citisenship IIRC.

Posted by: Critias Sep 5 2010, 03:38 AM

Because non-employees don't pay taxes...or, at least, not as many. I'm biting my tongue to keep from making a real-world analogy right now, but -- let's all play along, and not say it -- I think some of you can guess the comparison I'd make. The corp that gives "human" status to paracritters just might experience a flood of paracritter citizenship, brand loyalty, etc, etc. Corps that stood in the way of that, if and when the Ghouls and Pixies all get their SINs, just might feel some backlash.

Posted by: CanRay Sep 5 2010, 05:16 AM

Because the Corps would be able to "Cherry Pick" the best and brightest of the species and deny the rest for bureaucratic reasons.

Posted by: Jaid Sep 5 2010, 09:11 AM

actually, i figured it was because corps already have so many loopholes that let them abuse basic human rights and looking good while doing it that it isn't particularly meaningful to give anyone "basic human rights".

i mean, that security guard may have those basic human rights, but you think that means he isn't up to his eyeballs in debt (or worse) and is essentially trapped into unending servitude to the corporation, with the only way out being either selling himself off to some other corporation (except nobody bothers with extracting regular security guards) or managing to go live a life of squalor in some cesshole in the barrens (if he's lucky, he manages to get away *before* the corp repossesses all his cyberware).

so really, i figure in a lot of cases it went like this for the corporations that have representatives on the corporate court: just before the corporate court makes it's decision, all the AAAs officially grant the non-human sapient critters basic human rights... by offering it to them individually if and only if they sign contracts binding them to pay off their job training, housing, food, their handler's wages, any formal education or equivalent they may have received, any equipment they may have ever had installed or which they damaged in their time as essentially slaves to the corp, etc.

and shortly afterwards, the 'lucky' critter is officially a "free" citizen of the corporation... and owes the corporation so much that they'd have to spend the rest of their lives working if they want to avoid leaving their children with an inheritance consisting of nothing more than an unbearable debt load.

the AAs, though... they probably got screwed. but then again, they didn't get to be AAs by not being able to deal with what the corporate court dumps on them (a common problem i am sure when your major competition gets to decide the rules by which you compete). in all probability, they just shoved those non-human sapients into positions in subsidiaries that aren't megas, and which don't have extraterritoriality. after all, if they operate in the UCAS and the subsidiary isn't a mega, they use the laws of whatever country they happen to be in. once that's done, all they have to do is get their own paracritters to sign the same agreement. anything too small to be extraterritorial doesn't even have to worry, ultimately.

plus, even if the decision was made, it wouldn't go into effect immediately. you can bet the rest of the corporations who didn't know in advance made sure to keep it from the sapient critters and tried to get them to sign similar "in debt for the rest of your life" agreements in exchange for citizenship and "freedom"

Posted by: Sengir Sep 5 2010, 09:37 AM

What makes you think the corps are not already employing ghouls? If their prized new researcher does a good job I don't think the standard big, faceless, immoral corp is going to care for one second about what he has for dinner...unless they can use it as blackmail.

So what do corps gain by granting their non-humans citizenship? I'd say it makes a lot of things easier (i.e. cheaper) if the company representatives en route to the International Technobrabble Conference can travel as "five sentients, one with special arrangements" instead of "four people and a large pet". Also, you can't bind something non-sentient by contract...


And if those rights should get in the way of the corp's aims...well, did human rights prevent technomancer experimentation?

Posted by: Dumori Sep 5 2010, 12:34 PM

Corporate employees are transferred from corp to corp now and then. Some times for cash some times as part of under the table dealings such "sure we stole X prototype type how about we give you a top biologist?" though maybe not as blatantly stated.

Also AA corps can still claim extraterritorial status they just don't sit on the corporate court but still have to play by their rules.

Posted by: CanRay Sep 5 2010, 01:38 PM

"In news today, Ares Macrotechnology traded five top IC programmers to MCT for fifteen expert Spider Security Operators and a number of Security Guards to be named later." "I tell you, this is better than watching Baseball!"

Posted by: Dumori Sep 5 2010, 01:42 PM

There is a transfer market but man if people followed it like that they must be sad. I mean globally each AAA corp would be looking at a good 100 transfers aday both minor or major. From to and from owned subsidies and to rival corps.

Posted by: Troll Sep 5 2010, 08:40 PM

I may have found something a little off researching for the next game I want to run.

I'm almost certain that in previous materials New Orleans was written as having contended with Atlanta as Capital of the CAS, but in the Almanac it's listed as Richmond, and Houston/Austin/Dallas as the only competition.

It's a minor gripe, just something I noticed while digging through, and I could easily be incorrect as to "when" New Orleans rivaled Atlanta for the Capital of the CAS.