Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	arcady@*.net arcady@*.net
Subject:	Spirit of the land and it's people
Date:	Thu, 15 Jul 99 13:55:27 +700

Message no. 1 >> >If you don't count the Channel Islands in WWII, actually it's a lot less

>> >than that -- 202 years ago, around 5 pm on 22 February this year :)
>>
>> |1797? Only thing I can find around then is the battle of St. Vincent on
14
>> |February, when Jervis scattered the Spanish fleet on its way to reinforce
a
>> |French invasion force in Brest. The invasion was cancelled as a result (and

>> |a young Commodore Nelson earned his knighthood for his actions)
>>
>> I must say, I'm intrigued as well....Gurth?
>
>Four ships carried some 1,400 poorly-disciplined French troops (chained
>below-decks...) under a American colonel William Tate in 1797 sailed to
>Fishguard, in western Wales, and landed there on the date mentioned above.

>These troops did leave Brest, on the 16th of February, with the intention

>of attacking Bristol. En route, the plans were changed to attack Swansea
>instead, but for a variety of reasons they ended up in Fishguard instead.

In relation to the spirit of the land topic and who the land claims as it own...

This is very different from an invasion of a region by people wholey not from
that region and with no historical connection to it. This is still Europeans
warring internally. So the land is not having it's kind displaced in the same
way that could be said of the British invasion of Australia.

No matter how many differences there may be between different European tribes;
they are still closer to each other in physical, cultural, and spiritual makeup
than they are to say, an Apache, Aboriginee, or Vietnamese.

This is why I say that places like Australia and the USA would have a lot of
magical energy affoot in them. The land is disturbed there. It's native people
have been removed. It's children are gone. What's replaced them is in no way
similar to what it knows. It is angry.

The Carribean would have some of this as well. A little less anger though. The
blacks who replaced the europeans who had replaced the natives are close in
spirit to the natives and are not themselves the agressors responsibile. There
would be energy there in the land seeking it's lost children, but not in anger
at those who have come.

I don't think Shadowrun makes any statements about the land itself being alive
in this mannor, but it can add a lot of spice to a game to give the land itself
a soul. It certainly sits some of the underlying elements of Shadowrun's magic
(if only because the sources many of them are taken from are themselves mythos
that hold to the belief in a living land).
Of course Shadowrun may have a theme like this in some section of it's publications
that I have yet to read.

I would see the Ghost Dance as the people of the land calling upon her to rise
up in retirbution on a mass scale. And once the land has woken I don't expect
her to just quietly fade back to sleep. :)

From:	Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject:	Spirit of the land and it's people
Date:	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:15:49 +1000

Message no. 2 Arcady writes:
> This is very different from an invasion of a region by people
> wholey not from
> that region and with no historical connection to it. This is
> still Europeans
> warring internally. So the land is not having it's kind displaced
> in the same
> way that could be said of the British invasion of Australia.

Arcady, saying that's like "Europeans warring internally" is like saying
that a hypothetical war between the Apache and the Inuit are just a bunch of
Amerindians hitting each other.

Europe is extremely cultural diverse.

> No matter how many differences there may be between different
> European tribes;
> they are still closer to each other in physical, cultural, and
> spiritual makeup
> than they are to say, an Apache, Aboriginee, or Vietnamese.

Physical: there's not much difference between any of them. Cultural and
"spiritual" differences have nothing to do with race, Arcady.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

From:	arcady@*.net arcady@*.net
Subject:	Spirit of the land and it's people
Date:	Thu, 15 Jul 99 16:41:34 +700

Message no. 3 >Arcady writes:
>> This is very different from an invasion of a region by people wholey not
from
>> that region and with no historical connection to it. This is
>> still Europeans warring internally. So the land is not having it's kind displaced

>> in the same way that could be said of the British invasion of Australia.

>
>Arcady, saying that's like "Europeans warring internally" is like saying
>that a hypothetical war between the Apache and the Inuit are just a bunch of

>Amerindians hitting each other.
>
>Europe is extremely cultural diverse.

Yes it is. But it is also homogenous in relation to external regions. And adding
the 'just' in there takes things out of context. Otherwise yes, if an Apache
and an Inuit where in a conflict it would make sense to say you had two Native
Americans in a conflict.

>> No matter how many differences there may be between different European tribes;

>> they are still closer to each other in physical, cultural, and
>> spiritual makeup than they are to say, an Apache, Aboriginee, or Vietnamese.

>
>Physical: there's not much difference between any of them. Cultural and
>"spiritual" differences have nothing to do with race, Arcady.

So then you're saying an Apache is more like an Aboriginee than a Frenchman
is like an Englishman?

You've got two opposing points above. Which one are you standing on?

Viewed externally Europeans are all very similar to each other. Just as viewed
externally North American Indians are all very similar. At least in relation
to how they compare to other groups outside their region. There are, like it
or not; logical groupings that different ethnicities can fall under.
If you can't see that a Frenchman, a Russian, a Englishman, a Kosovar, and a
Romanian all have certain common elements that define them both physically and
culturally then you're definately not living in the real world.

Those elements may be very diverse. But in relation to how similar they are
to a Ugandan or an Incan or an Inuit they are very similar.

From:	Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject:	Spirit of the land and it's people
Date:	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:16:02 +1000

Message no. 4 Arcady writes:
> >Physical: there's not much difference between any of them. Cultural and
> >"spiritual" differences have nothing to do with race, Arcady.
>
> So then you're saying an Apache is more like an Aboriginee than a
> Frenchman
> is like an Englishman?

No, I'm saying that an Apache is not like an Aborigine (one 'e'), and a
Frenchman is not like an Englishman. There are degrees of relationship, at
best. When you take a far enough view point, they all appear identical, but
that is a very dangerous illusion.

In another post, you mentioned that the land has a sense of belonging. What
sort of scale are you talking about? North America as a whole, belonging to
the Native Americans? That's a bit extreme. The stream around the corner
belonging to the tribe recognised as living in the area when the Europeans
came along? What about the old tribe that lived there twenty years before
the Europeans came along, who got dislodged by the new tribe?

The concept of an "indigenous people" as a cultural whole is largely a
rallying point for political activists, and a sign of the laziness of
European anthropologists at the time.

> You've got two opposing points above. Which one are you standing on?

Hope that made it clearer.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

From:	chimerae@*.ie chimerae@*.ie
Subject:	Spirit of the land and it's people
Date:	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 20:02:24 +0100

Message no. 5 And thus did arcady@***.net on 15 Jul 99, at 13:55 speak:

> This is very different from an invasion of a region by people wholey not
> from that region and with no historical connection to it. This is still
> Europeans warring internally. So the land is not having it's kind
> displaced in the same way that could be said of the British invasion of
> Australia.

Are you trying to explain a Shadowrun phenomenon or is this a
personal theory? I assume it's the latter from reading the other
mails in the thread, but correct me if I'm wrong. This whole mail can
be seen as a big IMHO, and I just theorize, and do not necessarily
believe in this.

First there are no Europeans. Europe is the name of a continent and
even that is pushing it. It's like saying that the Americas are
culturally homogeneous. But enough about that, there's another mail
dealing with that.

First a few assumptions that form the basis of this discussion:
1. The Spirit of the Land (I think I abbreviate that to SoL) would be
all over the world.
2. The people living on that land can bond with it.

Items that are open for discussion/unclear/different depending on
your point of view:

1. The land forms a bond with the people that bond with it. The logic
behind this one could be that there is a form of symbiosis between
the two, that dissipates the more the people abuse the land and is
non existent if no one bonds with it. But it could also bond with the
people living on it without there being a two way bond. Why would it
need humans to initiate this bond? Or is the bond created over time
as the people on it live in harmony with it? Is the bond created by
worship (a very important point IMO) ?

2. There are multiple SoLs, each linked (formed by?) to a cultural
group bonded with it. Why would this be the case; is the
individuality of the SoL created by the bond? Are there geographical
boundaries between different SoLs and if so, would it be continental,
or based on smaller geographical features? Could this be like spirit
domains but on a bigger scale, could a hierarchical structure exist
that goes all the way up to the spirit of the whole world (universe)?

Okay now lets look at your examples:

a. Some groups of Native Americans bond with the land for a long
time, but get killed, or displaced by new groups of people (coming
from a different continent) who don't have a bond with the land nor
can they be bothered. In most scenarios the SoL would be annoyed.

b. The French Celts (grouped together for the sake of convenience)
where mostly conquered by the Romans (except for one small village...
:). The Romans didn't kill or displace the people, but they did
destroy druids where ever they could find them. So did this destroy
the Celts' bond with the SoL? Hard to say, possibly it destroyed over
time the means for the common Celt to bond wit the land because the
knowledge was gone. Would the SoL be angry? Again hard to say. It
could angry at the Celts for losing contact with it, or if it can
differentiate on that level at the Romans for killing its priest.

c. The crusade of the German Order against the pagan tribes living
around the Baltic sea wiped out a considerable percentage of the
indigenous population. The SoL would certainly lose contact with its
people there. Why would it not be as annoyed as the SoL of the Native
Americans? The fact that those knights came from the same continent,
and not too far away from its circle of influence? I personally fail
to see the logic there. Loss of contact would be a far more logical
reason than origins of invaders.

> This is why I say that places like Australia and the USA would have a lot
> of magical energy affoot in them. The land is disturbed there. It's native
> people have been removed. It's children are gone. What's replaced them is
> in no way similar to what it knows. It is angry.

When you look at the earth as a whole and throughout history groups
of people have been moving around/been wiped out forever. Why would
it matter much more because it happened in Australia and the USA? I
can imagine the SoL there being on the side of the indigenous
populations, simply because it could link to them and the others
treat the SoL with disrespect, but it would apply to far more places
than those two.

> The Carribean would have some of this as well. A little less anger though.
> The blacks who replaced the europeans who had replaced the natives are
> close in spirit to the natives and are not themselves the agressors
> responsibile. There would be energy there in the land seeking it's lost
> children, but not in anger at those who have come.

Right, it would just be selectively angry at the children of oh lets
say Spanish, English, Dutch, French and Portuguese ancestry. IMO the
SoL would not be angry there because some of the people who replaced
the natives created their own link to the SoL. Theoretical question:
what would the SoL do/feel when these people in their turn get
replaced? Following your scenario the whole earth would hate us,
because we can't sit still and keep moving, replacing, and killing.
Possibly it likes the animals a lot better than us...

Just some food for thought,

Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie

From:	chimerae@*.ie chimerae@*.ie
Subject:	Spirit of the land and it's people
Date:	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 20:02:24 +0100

Message no. 6 Okay, I promised myself I lurk for a while, 'cause I'm way to busy,
but this whole thread has been annoying the pants off me.

And thus did arcady@***.net on 15 Jul 99, at 16:41 speak:

> Yes it is. But it is also homogenous in relation to external regions. And
> adding the 'just' in there takes things out of context. Otherwise yes, if
> an Apache and an Inuit where in a conflict it would make sense to say you
> had two Native Americans in a conflict.

What you're saying is that to the average observer they might seem
that way. Doesn't make it true though. Terms like Native American,
European, and Asian to describe all the different cultural groups
living in a certain area only makes sense if you want to talk only
about the physical similarities, which I don't think have any
relevance in this discussion.

> So then you're saying an Apache is more like an Aboriginee than a
> Frenchman is like an Englishman?

Physically or culturally? I have the feeling that you are mixing up
two different characteristics here. Something can be said for Apaches
having a culture that is as similar to the Aborigine as the French
culture is to the English. You can find similarities but they end
once you go below the surface.

> Viewed externally Europeans are all very similar to each other. Just as
> viewed externally North American Indians are all very similar. At least in
> relation to how they compare to other groups outside their region. There
> are, like it or not; logical groupings that different ethnicities can fall
> under. If you can't see that a Frenchman, a Russian, a Englishman, a
> Kosovar, and a Romanian all have certain common elements that define them
> both physically and culturally then you're definately not living in the
> real world.

Bollocks, you might be able to group north-western Europeans into one
cultural group if you're willing to move back far enough, but to
group Romanians with Englishmen doesn't make any sense whatsoever
(even less if you mention that to the people involved, although the
Englishman might be more offended if you call him frenchie).
The rough definition of a culture is a group of people who have a
common belief system, art, historical background, customs and
conventions (I'm bound to forget a few, but it has been a few years).

Apply that to your four groups mentioned above and it will show you
that you might as well add e.g. Brazilians to the list, because it
will fit right in with your definition.

> Those elements may be very diverse. But in relation to how similar they
> are to a Ugandan or an Incan or an Inuit they are very similar.

The whole comparison doesn't make any sense in the first place,
because it involves more a difference in race than culture.

Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie

From:	chimerae@*.ie chimerae@*.ie
Subject:	Spirit of the land and it's people
Date:	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:54:37 +0100

Message no. 7 And thus did arcady@***.net on 15 Jul 99, at 13:55 speak:

> This is very different from an invasion of a region by people wholey not
> from that region and with no historical connection to it. This is still
> Europeans warring internally. So the land is not having it's kind
> displaced in the same way that could be said of the British invasion of
> Australia.

Are you trying to explain a Shadowrun phenomenon or is this a
personal theory? I assume it's the latter from reading the other
mails in the thread, but correct me if I'm wrong. This whole mail can
be
seen as a big IMHO, and I just theorize, and do not necessarily
believe in
this.

First there are no Europeans. Europe is the name of a continent and
even that is pushing it. It's like saying that the Americas are
culturally homogeneous. But enough about that, there's another mail
dealing with that.

First a few assumptions that form the basis of this discussion:
1. The Spirit of the Land (I think I abbreviate that to SoL) would be all
over the world. 2. The people living on that land can bond with it.

Items that are open for discussion/unclear/different depending on
your point of view:

1. The land forms a bond with the people that bond with it. The logic
behind this one could be that there is a form of symbiosis between the
two, that dissipates the more the people abuse the land and is non
existent if no one bonds with it. But it could also bond with the people
living on it without there being a two way bond. Why would it need humans
to initiate this bond? Or is the bond created over time as the people on
it live in harmony with it? Is the bond created by worship (a very
important point IMO) ?

2. There are multiple SoLs, each linked (formed by?) to a cultural
group bonded with it. Why would this be the case; is the
individuality of the SoL created by the bond? Are there geographical
boundaries between different SoLs and if so, would it be continental, or
based on smaller geographical features? Could this be like spirit domains
but on a bigger scale, could a hierarchical structure exist that goes all
the way up to the spirit of the whole world (universe)?

Okay now lets look at your examples:

a. Some groups of Native Americans bond with the land for a long
time, but get killed, or displaced by new groups of people (coming
from a different continent) who don't have a bond with the land nor
can they be bothered. In most scenarios the SoL would be annoyed.

b. The French Celts (grouped together for the sake of convenience)
where mostly conquered by the Romans (except for one small village... :).
The Romans didn't kill or displace the people, but they did destroy druids
where ever they could find them. So did this destroy the Celts' bond with
the SoL? Hard to say, possibly it destroyed over time the means for the
common Celt to bond wit the land because the knowledge was gone. Would the
SoL be angry? Again hard to say. It could angry at the Celts for losing
contact with it, or if it can differentiate on that level at the Romans
for killing its priest.

c. The crusade of the German Order against the pagan tribes living
around the Baltic sea wiped out a considerable percentage of the
indigenous population. The SoL would certainly lose contact with its
people there. Why would it not be as annoyed as the SoL of the Native
Americans? The fact that those knights came from the same continent, and
not too far away from its circle of influence? I personally fail to see
the logic there. Loss of contact would be a far more logical reason than
origins of invaders.

> This is why I say that places like Australia and the USA would have a
> lot of magical energy affoot in them. The land is disturbed there. It's
> native people have been removed. It's children are gone. What's replaced
> them is in no way similar to what it knows. It is angry.

When you look at the earth as a whole and throughout history groups
of people have been moving around/been wiped out forever. Why would
it matter much more because it happened in Australia and the USA? I
can imagine the SoL there being on the side of the indigenous
populations, simply because it could link to them and the others
treat the SoL with disrespect, but it would apply to far more places than
those two.

> The Carribean would have some of this as well. A little less anger
> though. The blacks who replaced the europeans who had replaced the
> natives are close in spirit to the natives and are not themselves the
> agressors responsibile. There would be energy there in the land seeking
> it's lost children, but not in anger at those who have come.

Right, it would just be selectively angry at the children of oh lets say
Spanish, English, Dutch, French and Portuguese ancestry. IMO the SoL would
not be angry there because some of the people who replaced the natives
created their own link to the SoL. Theoretical question: what would the
SoL do/feel when these people in their turn get replaced? Following your
scenario the whole earth would hate us, because we can't sit still and
keep moving, replacing, and killing. Possibly it likes the animals a lot
better than us...

Just some food for thought,

Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie

From:	chimerae@*.ie chimerae@*.ie
Subject:	Spirit of the land and it's people
Date:	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:54:37 +0100

Message no. 8 Okay, I promised myself I lurk for a while, 'cause I'm way to busy,
but this whole thread has been annoying the pants off me.

And thus did arcady@***.net on 15 Jul 99, at 16:41 speak:

> Yes it is. But it is also homogenous in relation to external regions.
> And adding the 'just' in there takes things out of context. Otherwise
> yes, if an Apache and an Inuit where in a conflict it would make sense
> to say you had two Native Americans in a conflict.

What you're saying is that to the average observer they might seem
that way. Doesn't make it true though. Terms like Native American,
European, and Asian to describe all the different cultural groups
living in a certain area only makes sense if you want to talk only
about the physical similarities, which I don't think have any
relevance in this discussion.

> So then you're saying an Apache is more like an Aboriginee than a
> Frenchman is like an Englishman?

Physically or culturally? I have the feeling that you are mixing up
two different characteristics here. Something can be said for Apaches
having a culture that is as similar to the Aborigine as the French culture
is to the English. You can find similarities but they end once you go
below the surface.

> Viewed externally Europeans are all very similar to each other. Just as
> viewed externally North American Indians are all very similar. At least
> in relation to how they compare to other groups outside their region.
> There are, like it or not; logical groupings that different ethnicities
> can fall under. If you can't see that a Frenchman, a Russian, a
> Englishman, a Kosovar, and a Romanian all have certain common elements
> that define them both physically and culturally then you're definately
> not living in the real world.

Bollocks, you might be able to group north-western Europeans into one
cultural group if you're willing to move back far enough, but to group
Romanians with Englishmen doesn't make any sense whatsoever (even less if
you mention that to the people involved, although the Englishman might be
more offended if you call him frenchie). The rough definition of a culture
is a group of people who have a common belief system, art, historical
background, customs and conventions (I'm bound to forget a few, but it has
been a few years).

Apply that to your four groups mentioned above and it will show you
that you might as well add e.g. Brazilians to the list, because it
will fit right in with your definition.

> Those elements may be very diverse. But in relation to how similar they
> are to a Ugandan or an Incan or an Inuit they are very similar.

The whole comparison doesn't make any sense in the first place,
because it involves more a difference in race than culture.

Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie

From:	Strago strago@***.com
Subject:	Spirit of the land and it's people
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:45:50 -0400

Message no. 9 <SNIP ALL TO ADD MY OWN STUFF>

OK, to use the information from my politics class (the same one which
taught me all about Vietnam), what is being discussed here is a civilizational
disagreement. A civilization, in this class, was defined as "the largest
grouping of people which can be termed without saying 'the entire human
race'." There were 7 civilizations, based mainly upon religion and language:
Western, Orthodox, Hindu, African, Latin American, Japanese, and Sinic.
You will notice that race does not factor into it. I don't remember where I
heard this, but anthropologists have identified 3 racial groupings which are
VERY different: White, African, and Sinic. The other races around (Native
American, Slavic, etc) are just "mixings" of those three races.
Just to identify that, as an FYI. I now return you to the regularly
scheduled discussion.

--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+
M-

From:	Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject:	Spirit of the land and it's people
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 23:02:19 -0700

Message no. 10 > civilizational
> disagreement. A civilization, in this class, was defined as "the largest
> grouping of people which can be termed without saying 'the entire human
> race'." There were 7 civilizations, based mainly upon religion
> and language:
> Western, Orthodox, Hindu, African, Latin American, Japanese, and Sinic.
> You will notice that race does not factor into it. I don't remember
where I
> heard this, but anthropologists have identified 3 racial groupings which
are
> VERY different: White, African, and Sinic. The other races around (Native
> American, Slavic, etc) are just "mixings" of those three races.

I would cut this down a bit.
Japanese and 'Sinic' are the same groups if as I believe Sinic refers to
east Asians like the Chinese.
Japanese culture is more borrowed from Chinese than Italian is from Roman.
They've had very high level trade between them for thousands of years and it
shows. Add in Korea and the similarities become extreme. They share the same
folk legends, similar dress, and similar languages (Korean for instance is
Chinese vocabulary with Japanese Grammar in about 60% of the language. And
all three have the same base for their number names). Many foods and
entertainments items are also shared with minor variations.

Western and Orthodox shouldn't qualify either. They're more similar than
many of the 'Sinic' groups... Such as Samoans and Mongolians...

I agree with the basic principle of there being a few 'greater'
civilizations; but the breakdown given is to Euro centric in it's
definitions.

As for there being 3 races, I disagree. Aborigines have been shown to be
genetically very different than any other group. Though if you must say
there are three races and not 4 they might come under white, but certainly
not under African or Sinic.

Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><
The Revolution will not be televised; it'll be emailed.
/.)\ Stop making sense. Be an Anti Intellectual
\(@/ Be Tao. Live Tao. Feel Tao. But don't do Tao.

From:	Strago strago@***.com
Subject:	Spirit of the land and it's people
Date:	Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:59:32 -0400

Message no. 11 Arcady wrote:

> One mistake: I mislabeled one civilization. I said African civilization, and it was
> labeled Islamic.

> Japanese culture is more borrowed from Chinese than Italian is from Roman.
> They've had very high level trade between them for thousands of years and it
> shows. Add in Korea and the similarities become extreme. They share the same
> folk legends, similar dress, and similar languages (Korean for instance is
> Chinese vocabulary with Japanese Grammar in about 60% of the language. And
> all three have the same base for their number names). Many foods and
> entertainments items are also shared with minor variations.
>

AHHH, but here's the rub: the original Sinic (Chinese, you are correct) and
Japanese languages are EXTREMELY different. As I'd said, the breaking distinctions
between civilizations are LANGUAGE (roots) and RELIGION. Culture does NOT factor into
it. I actually lost a few points on the Final because I messed this up.

> Western and Orthodox shouldn't qualify either. They're more similar than
> many of the 'Sinic' groups... Such as Samoans and Mongolians...
>

No, they weren't. Why do you think the situation in the Balkans is so extreme? You
have the ending points of 3 civilizations meeting right there: The Holy Roman
Christian culture in Croatia, the Russian Empire in Serbia, and the Moslem Empire in
Bosnia-Herzegovenia. Yes, they all speak a similar language, but the conflict has
always been between Muslims, Christians and Orthodoxy.

> I agree with the basic principle of there being a few 'greater'
> civilizations; but the breakdown given is to Euro centric in it's
> definitions.
>

I don't agree, and neither did the author of the book, but you are entitled to
your own opinion.

> Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><
> The Revolution will not be televised; it'll be emailed.
> /.)\ Stop making sense. Be an Anti Intellectual
> \(@/ Be Tao. Live Tao. Feel Tao. But don't do Tao.

--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+ M-

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer