If you want me to play grammar cop, I can play grammar cop. There's all sorts of shit wrong with your post, I wasn't trying to point out a few missed words because it was an incomplete sentence, but rather because you were presenting "there is no color, just the human race" as a factual statement, which it is not, rather than as a naive or optimistic world-view outlook.

I wasn't playing grammar cop, or spelling nazi, or typo jack-booted-thug. I was just correcting an unrealistically optimistic statement.

Lazarus - So technically the capital of the UCAS, Washington DC, is now in enemy territory?

In my opinion, I'd have expected that to settle more or less like it did in the civil war. Ask everyone who wants to go confederate to go one place to vote, then arrest them. I expect that, should there be a reasonably civil break up like what happened between the UCAS and CAS (not a big shoot out like our last one), the UCAS would make darn sure MD and NoVA would stay part of the Union and the CAS, who is seeking a relatively peaceful break up, would probably concede.

I've always been annoyed at the NAN in SR too. I can rationalize out the takeover of half the US, though barely, by assuming that they just asserted govornence over the territory ceded to them, and not ALL of the NAN states demanded the white-folk get out (aka: economic suicide). Mexico becoming Aztlan is not so much a native thing as it was a drug-lord corporate marketing scheme, which meant that they decided not to distinguish between native-descended and immigrant population, keeping their workforce intact and solidified. What really bugs me is that all of North America was apparantly hit by this wave of Native takeover, with only major industrialized centers surviving in their original govornments, and even then with some concessions.

That's just not right. A lot of people are snarked off because of the carve-up of the US, but I'm more ticked at what happened to Canada. There is no way in hell that Canada would get reduced to Ontario and the Maritimes because of Native American takeover. This is especially true if Canada and the US merge. The US offers nothing to Canadians but massive debt, loss of social programs and practically no voice in govornment. Canada has nothing to offer the US but a bunch of whining liberals who miss their universal health care and international relevance. The only thing Canada would have to offer the US is natural resources, which the NAN took the majority of. I would say the US has military power to offer Canada, but they lost to a bunch of natives who blew up a few volcanoes, and then had the warmer half of their union seceed.

Now, I've not come up with an alternate timeline that 'fixes' these issues, but that's because I like playing with the fucked-up canon story. It says to me more than any number of Earthdawn references that the SR universe was never our own. In the SR universe, the natives weren't so heavily devastated by disease and colonialism, only just enough to put them under the European's thumb for a few hundred years while they struggled for integration, recognition and rebuilding their numbers. When the GGD happened, the Native Americans in the SR universe had to number a great deal more than 1% of the population, perhaps as much as 10% or 20% at most, which survived VITAS because they were isolated from the rest of the world's population and maybe because some half-horror bastard son of an IE helped them survive it. Thus they have the numbers to take and hold the territory they are ceded at the Treaty of Denver. It also tells me that Western Canada is not the resource-rich oil mine it is in our world, and that instead Ontario and the maritimes (and possibly Quebec) were the resource-rich areas of Canada (mostly, the West would still have it's resources by the tonne, but it wouldn't be the massive supply we know it to be). It tells me that the Canadian portions of the UCAS were given a whole bunch of Congressional and Senate seats to keep them quiet, and that the states of Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island might even retain a form of universal health care (That is, a contract between a major medical corporation and the Canadian provinces for exclusive rights to the medical needs of Canadian citizens, on the condition they treat everyone who comes in and in return for some sweet, sweet tax-money and other perks. But this is really unlikely). This makes sense, the southern states were cheesed off because now there were even MORE northern east-coast liberals who were getting a disproportionately large number of seats in the two houses, and so decided to get out while the getting was good. California was kicked because, really the UCAS was too busy with trying to rearrange their entire govornmental structure to accomodate both the gain of the Canadian states and the loss of the southern ones that they seriously didn't care what California had to say. On top of which California's economy was failing due to overpopulation and lack of water and energy resources (problems it's running into now in RL, though as far as I know its economy isn't failing yet).

At least, that's how I see it.

Ok just to point out a Geographical problem here. The Midwest usually refers to the states of: Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Kentucky (which is also sometimes considered a Southern State). AND IOWA!

The NAN starts in the Plains States: Nebraska, the Dakotas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. And continues accross the Western States: Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, & Nevada. The Southwest Texas, New Mexico, & Arizona. And then gets kind of Chewed up along the PAcific Coast: California, Oregon, and Washington.

LOL, shit my bad. I should have said The states that comprise the NAN since they are both the Plain, Western, and Pacfic Coast.

It was confusing me a bit, since under some of these descriptions Chicago would have been the NAN's problem.

The states comprising the NAN are fairly sparsely populated for the most part, and while they probably only won them by using Ritual Magic Scare Tactics (anyone heard of the Soviet Missile Gap Crisis?) and some serious saber rattling, their ability to hold them is probably dependant on these factors.

Terrain, the area is very big and fairly mountainous throughout and very sparsely populated.

Low Population Density, there are a few big cities between the Rockies and the Pacific Coast (Denver is a separate entity, Las Vegas, Salt Lake, and Phoenix) but outside that there are a handful of smaller cities. Like most countries with low population Immigration rules probably allow for the entry of Non-Amerindians by blood, who may or may not have full political rights in order to support the economy(the Cascade Orc quite literaly sell membership to the tribe for example).

The UCAS has lots of other problems, so does the CAS.

Obviously some of the NAN Members have been more successful than others, some haven't even remained a part. Tsimshian for example is a near total failure, while the PCC was successful enough to absorb the Ute Nation on the other end of the spectrum.

Sorry, I'll fix it. I think it's a subconscious vendetta agains Iowa for screwing up my NCAA bracket so may years.

Lazarus - While your rant on our genetic similarities is inspiring, Critias' original complaint is still valid.

I am not the same color as a black person, nor as an Oriental person, nor a Native American, nor, for that matter, my wife or even my child. This has nothing to do with genetics. It has to do with the fact that, under white light, my skin reflects different specific wavelengths than what the skin of other people reflects. Ergo there is color. Unless you are visually impaired, I would be happy to provide evidence of this.

As for DC, I'll have to read over my SR history. I can certainly agree that BOTH sides would want to take DC. Your statement would seem to indicate that the UCAS wouldn't care where DC goes. However, most of the metropolitan area is definitely more Union than Confederate. There would certainly be some conflicts, but I seriously, seriously doubt the capital would let itself become 'rebel'. If the Confederates want DC, they'll have to either make it completely unattractive to the north (not sure how they'd do that. Maybe just make it politically dangerous enough that the capital moves somewhere else, then take it, but that'll take time and it'll be hotly contested until the merge with Canada), or they'll have to take it directly by force of arms. Maryland is small beans, but it'll go where DC goes, most likely (it's strategically critical).

As for the military, yes, we have an awful lot of military bases in the south and midwest, and we've moved a fair amount of our production facilities down there. However, every soldier has sworn to uphold the constitution and to obey his superior officer. While there would likely be some rebellion in the ranks, especially among the national guard and grunts, all the major guns (bombers, nukes and the navy) will be tightly held by the most trusted and well protected people. Rebels will be court martialed and likely shot. Troops overseas will be brought back to the north, not allowed to fight on whichever side they want (and what good is a rebel cell in Okinawa?)

Nezumi:

Here is a link that would do more then rearguing my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race

And I wasn't saying there weren't any differences. In fact here is what I was saying can be taken from the text from the link:

"Many evolutionary and social scientists, drawing on such biological research, think common race definitions, or any race definitions pertaining to humans, lack taxonomic rigour and validity. They argue that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, and that the races observed vary according to the culture examined. They further maintain that race is best understood as a social construct." This is the side of the argument I fall on. The link does have the other side though.

And no Critias' complaint is only valid in that is a statement of fact, but it just happens to be false because his argument was that the original post was NOT a factual statement when in fact it is. Now whether that statement is true or false is up for debate but the fact remains it is still a "factual statement" and not a statement of opinion.

I would have to disagree with you Nezumi because I think you are associating too much of the previous American Civil War with the Secession in SR. For one thing the CAS is not the CSA and the UCAS is not the Union. There is no Union and Confederate. Times have changed. There is no slavery issue, no States Rights issue, and you don't have President Lincoln running the White House.

And the argument that the oath to the Constitution and obeying a superior officer to have that much significance on a universal level throughout the military is a huge leap. The way I read the break up in SR world is that it is mostly a bloodless parting between two sections of the country that don't see eye to eye politically anymore. Most common people and common soldiers really aren't going to care. They are going to go home to whatever state they are from and serve there if at all.

Although there are a lot of people who join the military out of patriotism I would say that a good majority join out economic need. The point is why would an average person risk their lives for the USA when there is no more USA? It’s the UCAS which, to me, has the same problems from a national heritage that inspires patriotism stand point as any new nation such as the CAS, the NAN, Atzlan, The Tir, or whoever.

The main difference between 1861 and the SR world is that CAS doesn't want to be apart of the UCAS and the UCAS doesn't feel the need to force them to stay. Hell the UCAS even kicked out California.

And your right in saying that most likely where Maryland goes so will D.C. but in my timeline Maryland joins the CAS as does Virginia. So getting D.C. or making it unattractive is really a non-issue.

Well, I can't argue with 'in my game'. I'll admit, I don't know enough guys from SE or anything to say which way most would try to go. Certainly most political people, and most of the middle class surrounding DC, would probably try to go with the UCAS. Failing that, I suspect they'd move. The federal government of the US effectively becomes the government of the UCAS, judging from the books, and that would presumably include most of the employees (or at least those stationed at headquarters). Being a federal employee, I would not be anxious to either quit my job nor move just because the southerners don't like the feds. I would vote to stay UCAS. But as I said, it's your game.

As for 'there is no color'...

This is a black person:
http://www.wvah.com/programs/berniemac/cam...illewinbush.jpg

This is a white person:
http://www.met.utah.edu/people/staff/P8260.../variant/person

This is a Native American person (also called 'red', without the intent to be insulting):
http://www.friendsofsweetwatercreek.org/DBROWN0s.JPG

(I just grabbed the first pictures in google image searches, BTW. Any bias is on the part of people who link regularly to these pictures with those terms.)

As you can tell, these people have different color skins.

Hence, there clearly IS [differences in] color. (I presume that that is a more complete understanding of the original statement. If I showed everyone was black, there still would be color, but I think I'd be missing the implied point.) That is a factual statement and I have proven it true. The color of my skin is pale-olive. My wife's is much whiter. Whether this is a subject of race or not is completely irrelevant. How many Asians (or whatever brown skinned nationality you want to consider) were harassed because people thought they were Arab? People are and continue to be judged solely on the light reflected off their skin.

Yeah, I can't argue with the 'in my game' statement either. But, being a person who was raised in the South and then moving to DC, I'll state my opinion that DC would go with UCAS. That said, growing up in Atlanta, in the late 80's and the 90's, there's been a huge population surge in the Southern states, such as Atlanta where Northerners and West Coast folks were moving into the region. I find it very hard to see a separation between the Northern and Southern states nowadays because of the ease which people move between the States and receding powers of the States to the Federal government.

Oh, the argument that people about colour. Very wishful thinking, I agree with nezumi. My sister's fiance is half indian and half irish, from that mix he constantly gets harassed by security and other folks because he look middle eastern. It happens, and I can name a few times I've been judged because of how I look (asian). So you can make your own judgment on that.

First of all I have no idea where you get the argument that I said there is no color difference in the various ethnic groups across the world. I never said it and going back and reading my posts I can't find it. I have no idea where you got this from.

The whole point, the entire point is that there is no BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE between the so-called races. The fact that African Americans are brown and European Americans are pale, white, or whatever is NOT A BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE. That is the point I am trying to make. Showing me pictures doesn't even begin to come close to being a counter-argument or point. If you would actually take the time and read what I wrote you would see that.

Basically what you are telling me, from what you wrote, is that all the racists are correct and there is a difference between people of different ethnic groups most of which is based on skin tone, facial make-up, and all that pseudo-science and Eugenic crap which has been proven to be untrue by any creditable scientist.

So is that what you are telling me? That there are significant, biological differences among people of different ethnic groups? Now I don’t think that is what you are trying to say? (Are you?) See I'm one those crazy people that think there is only one actual race: The Human Race. I base that on biology and species. I don't think that Asians and Europeans are TWO DIFFERENT SPECIES. The term race needs to be re-defined in order to fit it’s actual meaning. Are there different ethnic groups of humanity? Yes. Are there different races of humanity? No.

Now am I saying there has never been racism in the world based on the false notion of race? Of course not and in fact I have not once said that. Reading any history book or looking at the news I can see that it is alive and well. (Unfortunately.)

And after this if you still come back with some sort "See look I can show you other races, look at these links" "or I don't know how you can say there are no other races," then you have missed the point completely and there is no sense in going on with this.

The thing is that there are minor biological differences between ethnic groups due to natural selection guided by enviromental and lifestyle factors. Take sickle cell anemia, for example, is most common in people of African decent with people of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern descent following.

It is nothing more than willfull ignorance to suggest that some genes aren't more common in one race than another and it is willfull ignorance to suggest that some genes don't lead to differing physical abilities. Tall people are better backetball players. It is as simple as that. It is foolish to ascribe any more or any less significance to such differences and it is utter stupidity to adhere to any notion of racial purity when genetic diversity is one of the most important factors in the long term survival of any species.

Well then Lazarus, there was a slight misunderstanding going on between the posts. But as hyzmarca said there are still slightly different things between people concerning biological dispositions. The example of sickle cell anemia is a good example because it is more resistant against malaria. Another example is certain cancers is more predominant in one race while others are not. It just happens. Just slight differences due to genetic diversity especially from populations being separated and in different environments for a darn real long time before the world got to be a smaller place due to developments in transportation.

I don't think there's any one better race or that there any differences between races. But I do think there people who are predisposed to certain ailments because of who they are. Nothing major and whatnot, but it just happens. Like dog breeds, there's lots of different breeds, problem is the purebreds all have different sort of ailments that they are disposed towards, but other than that they're all the same, just different shapes and sizes and whatnot. lol. Maybe everyone should be mutts that way it'll solve a lot of problems.

What a bizarre, bizarre, thread.

Speaking as a brit - and we have our fair share of racism - I just cannot get my head around a country as schizophrenic as the US. And I'm from a country where the accents change when you cross a bloody valley.

But, all this odd racism pedantry aside, as far as I can tell, the NAN revolution is quite realistic. A bunch of people get locked up for no reason other than the colour of their skin and that a minority of them are willing to kill to further their political beleifs. They are rounded up on the basis of mere trace elements of genetic code (and by the way, while I sincerely agree from a personal standpoint that there is no colour, just the human race, I would add the caveat 'and we're all scumbags' just to make sure, and I would humbly point out that a phenotypic difference is still a biological difference based on the genetic code of the invidual), and all kept together to fester and dwell on their hatred of the people who did this to them. Now, this part is certainly probable, and anyone who doesn't beleive me just has to look at the way the 'war on terror' (god that makes me laugh. Fight terror with... something that inspires terror! Wonderful!) is going (and in some cases, the way its gone already).

Then they get free amid the chaos of a plague, which for whatever reason they are largely unaffected by, when half or more of the 'opposition' are down for the count and incapable of decision making or for that matter defending themselves, and take over a few nuke silos. The govmint finally gets its act together, remarkably quickly given the situation and rolls out the tanks. Then the primitives (and now I'm using inflammatory language on purpose simply because you're all taking this discussion about a fictional scenario ever so seriously. In my opinion, based on evidence, 'primitive'='has the half a brain the so called civilised world is sadly lacking) and all that strange dancing and chanting they get up to manage to blow up a bunch of volcanoes, generate tornadoes and bring down fighter jets and threaten - realistically or no - to do much worse. They are able to do this because magic has returned and not only have they cottoned on to that fact wheras all the white folks haven't, but they've actually got some fully trained war shamans ready to use it.

The government pretty much loses control at this point, and to be honest probably has its hands full just containing the panic. And if that's not enough for you, then perhaps the leaders of the US got a few midnight visitors in the form of ritual sendings or spirits threatening them personally and their families. The west doesn't have the knack of magic yet, so they've no defense.

Now, with the greatest of respect to the american presidents and the superhuman hallowed status US citizens seem to hold them in, they are politicians, an inherently self-preserving breed. You're telling me they won't roll over? Doubtful.

I too have a hard time seeing the population figures working, as the original poster points out. I CERTAINLY doubt very much that once the rest of the continent got magic figured out that they'd leave the situation as it is. But the initial creation of the NAN states? Nope, no problem with that at all. But then, I'm not from the US, and perhaps - and I really don't want to upset anyone here, but I suspect I will - being from a nation which used to rule half the world and lost it, I don't share the US citizen's sense of immortality about my nation.

Oh, and while I'm at it, we DID steal that land. Humans may work that way, but we don't have to bloody well embrace it and treat it like that's the right way to behave.

No Actually I called Critias on saying that wasn't a factual statement. Here is what I mean, again.

In his book A Concise Introduction to Logic (7th edition) Patrick J. Hurley of the University of San Diego defines a statement as "a sentence that is either true or false." Some examples include:

Aluminum is attacked by hydrochloric acid.
Broccoli is a good source of vitamin A.
Argentina is located in North America.

And our own:

No prob bro, their is no colour, just the human race. <From Mr. Platnium>

Now is this statement a factual claim or a statement of belief or opinion?

First we need to understand what a factual claim is.

From the same book a factual claim is "something that is true; a claim that evidence or reasons that support or imply something.”

A statement of opinion or belief is "an expression about what someone happens to believe or think at a certain time." It doesn't need evidence to support it. Me saying "I like chocolate ice cream," is statement of belief because I don't need evidence to support that.

So is the statement above presented as a fact or opinion? Only Mr. Platnium can answer that fully, but Critias's argument seems to be that the statement could in no way be a factual claim, and I on the other hand disagree. Can that statement be interpreted as a factual claim? Yes. Does that mean it is going to have absolute Truth value. No, or maybe it does depending on where you stand on absolute truth.

Does Sickle Cell and certain cancers negate the argument from the Wikipedia link I posted which I happen to agree with? No it doesn't or maybe it does depending on where you stand on the issue. Because Africans are more likely to get Sickle Cell does that mean they are a different race? I don't think so and that is because I have a different definition of race. I think Iron Mouser backed this up rather nicely. I use race as I would species. I use ethnic group in place of race because of the negative social connotations from the word. Does that make me PC? I don't think so. I like to think I am using the word properly. Even now there is a debate in academia about the correct meaning of the word "race". To me when you use Sickle, cancers, or anything of that nature to separate humanity into different racial groups you are not much different then a racist who uses hair, skin, and facial structure to do the same thing. A new science for the same old racism.

Hmmm... looks like there's some different viewpoints on people's parts.

Looks like Platinum's statement is that there's only the human race and we should not be constrained by colour (or racial groups). An idealism to end racism.

Critias is trying to show that under anthropological definition of race and biology/culture, well, yeah, there are distinctions. Not exactly racist when you are going regional distinction of a species.

Lazarus, well, you're kinda alike on Critias but not wanting to use the word race because of its history and connotations with it used by racism. But Lazarus, instead of racial groups, we use ethnicity for figuring out what person has a predisposition of disease. How about that? You're only changing the word, but it's still being used as a classification...

aside:
To deny that there are some physiological differences between different ethnic groups is not a racist agenda. I really hate racism and I've felt it's sting before since I'm a minority (if you want to know), so don't be pulling that card. But, as an engineer/science person, I also recognize that there are some genetic predispositions that are inherent in a person's background, AND it would be good that doctors would recognize it during checkups. 'Yes, doctor, please check for these types of cancers please, even though many of your other patients don't normally have it'. It's not racism it's the practicality of the matter that should be noted especially in cancer detection and drug treatments.

if you find it hard that a smaller population could rule over a larger one.. you arn't reading your history books. Just look at the UK in India (well the UK anywhere in the world), the Roman empire, Alex the greats hellanistic empire (this cat owned most of the known world). So to think that 2-4 million Indians couldn't get a hold of half of North America, you are just angry that in the shadowrun world, the white man got beat. Didn't South Africa not to long ago have its first black president, and we all know how many white people there are in Africa. Not trying to start a fight with anyone. Just throwing in my 2

A current example would be such as Syria, the government there is dominated by the "Alawite community, a Shia sect to which only about ten percent of the people of Syria belong"* are in control of the country, a majority of the population are sunni. Basically, a smaller group that is in charge of a larger one.

Im not even getting into the race issue, the point of this thread was Shadowrun.

So.

In the above examples, the British Empire over India South Africa etc. You have highly established people with parliments and solidified structured society plus high technology ruleing over people that were behind the techological and political curve.


In SR a supposed 1% of the population, stormed out of deathcamps and took over half the country. How did they run infostructure, roads etc. if they were in camps for so long.

Lets say that they did spook the fuck out of the U.S.A. with all the magic. Thats cool, but by 2050 with the Awakening randomley turning people into mages that means that the 1% of the native population will far be outnumbered in magical proweness by 2070. Expecially seeing that the magic universities and corps are mostly in UCAS, CAS, Japan etc.

I can see them(super far fetched) takeing it at first, during the awakening chaos. But they should not be able to hold it.

The key is the population. For Non Americans here.. let me explain... AMERICANS CAN GO ALL THEIR LIVES AND NEVER SEE A INDIAN!! EVER! I have known one full Indian, and seen a few in my entire life. Ukrainians, South Africans, Russians, Romanians are more common in Southern California than Native Americans.

Africans Americans are a minority in America, Native Americans could as well not exist because nobody knows any. I spent the last two days asking around in L.A where I live, how many Native American decendands do people know. ZERO. I was the majority, I had a school mate and a ex gf with 1/8th native heritage.

Therefore its hard for a group of American gamers that live in one of the biggest cities in the U.S. (L.A.) to accept it as realistic that Natives took over this country in 2010(?)

You know. Come to think of it that is kind of sad.

Well, the Mongols conquered China and ruled for some time. Considering that the Mongols didn't possess Magic of Mass Destruction (A volcanic eruption releases about as much energy as a nuclear detonation, you know.)

Look I know that not everyone is going to agree with me and I don't expect them to but I really don't how to explain it any more clearly. For me there is only one race. I don't use the term race to describe an ethnic group. Race is the same as species therefore why would I use the word race to describe population, cline, or ethnic group? I don't think that differences between various people are enough to constitute a different biological race. I'm not saying people aren't different or they don't have small variations in their genetic make-up but on the whole there is only once human race.

I guess I'm just going to have to agree to disagree on the race issue because it's just going to keep going forever with people posting statements without backing them up and I'll probably be misquoted again anyway. Not trying to flame anyone just frustrated that I can’t seem to communicate my argument.

On the issue of the NAN question in Shadowrun all that you really have to do in fiction is show that something is plausible. The problem I have with the way the NAN is setup in the SR canon is that, to me, it isn't plausible. Of course I would like to keep it in because of the element it adds to the game world so I think you just have to make it plausible. I attempted to do this by:

1. Changing some the history as to the causes for the formation of the NAN.
2. The Natives did not get rid of all Non-Natives
3. The USA did not put them into camps. They treated SAIM as terrorists but they didn't "round up" all Native Americans. They even left the reservations alone.
4. I don't have to worry about the whole VITAS crap because since everyone who wants to be a Native is after the Treaty of Denver it doesn't matter.
5. Jarmen doesn't order the extermination of all Native Americans. The GGD still goes down because Jarmen orders all reservations seized and occupied by US military forces. For the Natives this is on act of war. It isn't the sole reason for the Treaty of Denver. As I said before there are many reasons and I don't really point to specifics as to which is true. It something that is argued in the game world but the point is it happened.

The D.C. question and the view of the Shadowrun CAS.

To me the CAS is not the CSA. You can't say all southerners are redneck bubbas who want the South to Rise Again! The CAS is not the Confederacy. At the time the CAS is formed the South is going to be very different than it is today. With the immigration of Hispanic and Asian peoples, migration from other people in the US, the culture of the South is going to change somewhat. Yes these people will most likely adopt some southern customs but they will also bring their own with them that southerners will adopt.

The reason I have the CAS being a little more powerful then the straight SR CAS is that I wanted a country that tried to hold on to something that was "American". To me the way the UCAS is presented is that the Megas, especially Ares, pretty much run the country and it is the same for every other country in the SR world. For me the CAS is the remnant of super power USA. They try to act like they aren't beholden to the Megas, to which they're wrong, but that is the way the country perceives itself. <You may ask "How is that different from today's America? Don't the corps run it now? “I’m not talking about reality merely perception. And perception is powerful thing.>

I guess to use a generalization: The UCAS is liberal, paternalistic USA and the CAS is republican, individual liberties USA. <I'm not making a moral or political judgment here, I know republicans and democrats can be either or just using certain words for explanation only. And again it is a generalization.>

Anyway that's my 0.02

i would never say i personaly think it is possiable to happen, or if they did.. i am pretty sure they couldn't hold it for 30 years.. but if you can understand that dragons are back in the world as real things and are ceo's of world controling companies, then you should be able to put logic aside for other things. hehe I would never tell anyone that their gaming universe is wrong and they shouldn't play that way... it ruins the fun. I still use stuff that happened in 2050 to spice up my games (my players don't know as much as me) However you feel is the way to play, thats how you should play. Gotta love shadowrun.

Heh.

I'm 1/32 Native American, if memory serves. Apparently. my great-great-grandfather (on my father's side) was a member of the Penobscot tribe, who was sick of being the subject of prejudice, so he renamed himself [whatever his first name was] Scott, and proceeded to pass himself off as a European. Eventually, he married a white woman, had my Great-grandfather, and the results of that should be obvious. I say obviously, because all of this is second-hand from hearing my mother relating her experiences in talking with the older members of the family, though apparently they consider it shameful, and are rather tight lipped about it.

If you met me you'd never know unless I told you. For all intents and purposes, it's just a quirk of ancestry. I doubt that too many people would think that a white dude living in Australia would have Native American ancestry, as well.

I am always amazed that the NAN nations in SR canon can't be discussed without starting a race or geopolitics firefight.

hyzmarca, while you are correct that the term Race is being applied differently by several people in this thread, (and your correct that Race means sub-group, not species) you seem to underestimate how much some people need to stroke their own morality by publicly, and loudly, denouncing even the possible appearance of maybe-racism. Something about the intoxicating high of people complimenting your wisdom on such things, I suppose. Racism is bad, but undermining any attempt at intelligent discourse with these mushminded word games is doubleplussungood too.

edit, curse my typing!

hymarca you really should check your sources before you posted them. I found this link from your first link.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/brace.html

The argument by C. Loring Brace is in-line with what I was saying before. That is the side of the argument I fall on.

And the Wikipedia article I sited also sites Brace and whole host of other scholars so I think you are being a little disingenuous when you arbitrarily say that whoever wrote the article is an idiot. I think it is pretty objective and very well researched.

As to the definition of race you sited I'll just go ahead and put it here.

"The biological definition of race is a categorization of organisms with differing characteristics while maintaining enough similarities to be a part of a common genus and species. The word race in this context can be considered synonymous with sub-species."

Sure by this definition my use of the word race being synonymous with species does make it stretch but it doesn't invalidate my argument. And if I cite Brace then I can back up my claim.

Now we can get into an argument about 2nd part of the definition but the first part again doesn’t knock down my argument. To me the 2nd part is talking about the social construction of the word race and while there might those who will disagree I think that goes to the heart of the matter. My point is that the word race can, at best, really can only be used to talk about humanity as a whole, and in fact because of it's moral and social problems it really should be dropped when describing ethnic groups.

And Deamon_Knight sticks and stones may break my bones but ad hominem abusive arguments don't hurt me. And I thought we were having intelligent discourse? So I guess I’m stupid because I don’t agree with what you believe?

Look to all those who don’t agree with me on this hey that’s fine. I’m not saying your wrong. You could be right. The issue is still being debated.

I do agree with you on the problem with definitions and maybe that is what we're having here.

I didn't intend to cal the author of the anticle and idiot, although I did leave the target of that remark intentionally vauge. It includes those Who stretched notions of race beyond the available evidence and I'll leave it at that.

I use the Nova source specifically because NOVA is an educational program within impartial stance. Of course one can find an opposing viewpoint there.

However, this argument is just a matter of semantic hair-splitting on both side, much ado about nothing, as I said when I coyly tried and failed to derail the topic even further into the classification of Pluto.

Lazarus, I wasn't targeting you in specific, several poster here have made similar assertions. Also, I didn't call you stupid, but rather wrong because you seem to be bringing a substantial bias into this without much cause.

You say the latter part of the definition of race you cited, defining race as a subspecies, is a social construction; suggesting the former, race as a separate scientific group synonymous with species, is the correct and widely accepted scientific definition. I disagree with this characterization. I have checked 3 dictionary entries online, all define race, withing the context of biology, as a subspecies. To say that no person can honestly be using race withing this context, in accordance with the plain dictionary definition, and that those people, by process of elimination, are using race to define "Us" as separate from "The Other" in an attempt to describe other races as less than worthy of the all encompassing term "human", is simply a sneaky way of calling someone a racist. That is an Ad hominem attack. And that stifles discussion by defining any use of the term race as racist. (sorry for the run on sentence).

To say that any group of characteristics that are a result of genetics, prevalent and pervasive in a defined (usually geographically) group of organisms are COMPLETELY irrelevant is illogical, incompatible with any accepted theories of hereditary evolution, and silly on its face. Its fashionable in some circles, occasionally to avoid the bad science of racists trying to "prove" the superiority of Race A over Race B, or more commonly as a bludgeon in political circles to derail discussion (see above).

I don't like people who imply I'm a racist and try to redefine words to advance an agenda. Even if done without malice, it rubs me the wrong way, and I choose to challenge it. Sometimes more directly than others. No personal attack intended Laz.

De-hijack

Where is there more info on Aina and Thais? What is his motivation for meddling with indigenous cultures beliefs? He just likes the attention?

HI-jacked, dehi-jacked?

man a lot went on in the course of 24 hours.

I'm sorry that anyone on this board thought I was calling them a racist directly or indirectly. That was not my intention. If my passion for the debate got out of hand, and it looks like it did, I apologize. I was taking up one side of the argument, that's all. Not trying to digitally finger point or accuse. My point was simply that any type of classification which is based on the notion of the word “race” is inheritably racist. That position may be extreme, but it is not fallacious. Also because I take this position doesn’t mean I think those who don’t are racists themselves. A racist is someone who feels their race in particular is superior to all others. I don’t think anyone has shown that here.

Also I don't think anyone is stupid for being on the other side of this debate. I just happen to not agree with that position which doesn't mean it is not without merit or truth value.

Again my sincerest apologies to anyone I have offended.

<Note: Deamon_Knight don't worry about the run on sentence. I've read Kant translated to English so you've got nothing on him. >

For the record, I do think my race is superior to all others. In related news, I only think that because I'm a member of that race, and lift the average. Tangentially, my back is a little sore from carrying the rest of my team all the time.

@ Topic:

I suppose I'm in the miniscule minority here, but I do know Indians. Hundreds of them actually. I grew up across the highway from a Piute/Shoshone reservation in the California high desert. I went to school with them, dated one. We had Pow-Wows at our school with beating drums and them singing in their language. We learned some of their dances - all of which I have forgotten unfortunatley.

The point is, there were a lot of them on that one reservation, and there were dozens of other larger reservations in the area - with hundreds more across the nation. Just because you don't see these people doesn't mean they don't exist. If all of those people came together in common cause and had the power of the GGD at their disposal, I can certainly believe that some land concessions would be made.

Now as to whether or not they would have been able to take most of the West, AND been able to keep it once everybody else had access to powerful sorcery is another matter, but I like the flavor of the fractured continent so I use it in my games.

Haven´t read the whole thing so I may just repeat something already said. Anyway, I can understand why americans (other than amerinds) would be less than pleased with the NAN part of the Shadowrun setting. It is a stretch after all. Being from Europe however, it doesn´t seem so strange that the map changes drasticly all of a sudden. And as you know it could and propably will happen to the US eventually (because no empire has ever lasted previously in history).

Never mind that the indians are too few to revolt in the real world, what´s important is that they make for much more interesting and exotic new countries than some made up (but more propable) political faction(s) would have made. And the balcanized, deverse and uneasy continent of America in Shadowrun does make for an interesting setting, I think. They sacrificed propability for the chance of having a continent of countries populated with people with a history each of their own. Sort of like Europe.

(As this is hot water I will clarify. I do not claim USA does not have a history, only that there is no plausible way of imagining a future were USA would split into several, diverse countries with an old culture of their own. As that evidently was the aim of the authors (and I do believe it was a good aim), they had to do what they did.)

Lazarus, I think we're attacking completely different arguments, like stainless steel said.

The statement was "No prob bro, their is no colour, just the human race." (The implied subject of 'color' is peoples' skin, and presumably he meant 'there' not 'their').

I would agree with Critias, the statement is incorrect, because there IS color. Even if we were all the same color, there is color.

Assume he means there's no difference in color between people. Again, this is false. People are different colors. I have provided pictures of people in different colors.

Assume he means people of different colors are not treated differently, or different colors are irrelevant. This is false. Racism is alive and well.

You seem to have presumed that he meant 'there is no appreciable biological difference between people of different skin colors', which I will agree with, but you never stated this original assumption of yours when you went on with your rant. This means you were arguing we are biologically all more or less the same, whereas I (and I presume others) were arguing that people have different skin colors.

The line in question does not explicitly address race, genetics, or any of the myriad of other topics you brought up. It simply address color, presumably skin color of people. Skin color of people does exist. The original statement is, therefore, factually incorrect.

Strangely enough, you never applied the rules of your chapter on 'factual statements' to the actual statement in question. Your presumption that an opinion cannot be a fact is also incorrect. "I like chocolate" is factually correct, it's simply difficult for someone else to prove, and is also liable to change. "I like peanuts" is factually false, but again, difficult to prove and liable to change. Something being subjective doesn't mean it can't be factually correct. (Remember, a fact is: "Something believed to be true or real". I believe I like chocolate.)


That said, I think the ultimate blame lays on Mr. Platinum for completely derailing this thread with his carefully planted one-liner of doom.