Ironwood banned at GenCon
Dave Van Domelen
Squirrel Nutkin <ni...@uk.ccl.com> wrote:
>Have I been on Mars? What is the Ironwood sourcebook about that
>it is so controversial?
Well, if it has art from the comic, that would certainly cover it. }->
For those who don't know, Ironwood is Bill Willingham's Swords-Sex-&-Sorcery
comic book.
Dave Van Domelen, wishes Willingham would get around to putting out the
final two issues....
Peter Hentges
>For anyone who's interetsed, GenCon has (understandably) banned Ironwood,
>the Theatrix world book, because it breaks every one of their stated
>guideline rules except the exposition of torture or mutilation.
Including riducle of the handicapped? And the blurring of lines between
reality and game? Or do exhibitors operate under different rules than
game judges?
-Peter Hentges [O]
-peter_...@ccmgate.adc.com [O]
-JBRU [O]
Andrew Finch
: Well, if it has art from the comic, that would certainly cover it. }->
: For those who don't know, Ironwood is Bill Willingham's Swords-Sex-&-Sorcery
: comic book.
: Dave Van Domelen, wishes Willingham would get around to putting out the
: final two issues....
Final issue. #10 is out. We've seen #11, but can't say anything. If you
want to know what happened after #11, you have to buy the game...
Yes, we've got the art from the comic books. We're missing the choice
little numbers, like Fantasia Foust and the wziard who had to turn himself
into a Hill Ogre to get it up, but enough of the less virulent pieces are
in there to be too much. They didn't like the opne use of the word 'fuck'.
For anyone not aware, you can't have a product at Gencon that:
Portrays mutilation or open torture (we missed these, damn).
Portrays nudity (oops)
Portrays any current religion in a negative capacity (uh-oh)
Portrays any older religion as an ongoing and useful activity (got us there)
Portarys any law enforcement individual in a derogatory manner (well...
we're not kind to authority)
Uses bad language (that's us)
All that, and it can be used diceless.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
John R. Snead
put a game in a modern day setting and have people who are part of a Roman
Mystery cult you can't play it a Gencon?
Has anyone told these folks their rules are amazingly silly?
-Heron jsn...@netcom.com
Tim and Stacey Dunn
>Has anyone told these folks their rules are amazingly silly?
Some people have postulated that TSR can stand for "Terribly Silly Rules"
but I thought they were commenting about the RPG rules, not the con rules.
Tim
--
Laws of Japanese Animation: [by rshellit|dbr...@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu]
#11 - Law of Inherent Combustability
Everything explodes. Everything.
Squirrel Nutkin
it is so controversial?
Regards
Squirrel Nutkin.
Andrew Finch
the Theatrix world book, because it breaks every one of their stated
was hot enough that they have asked us not to advertise the product there
either. We went to the GenCon staff voluntarily with this issue and plan
to abide, however much it stings, with their decisions (it's their
convention). Backstage Press will be available for distributors
interested in the product (full of Bill Willingham story ideas and art),
and we're trying to negotiate pre-sales with the GenCon staff (to see if
we can take orders, and ship the book later, even if we can't actually
advertise carrying it). Again. we will abide by the convention commitee's
decision.
Anyone interested in having a look at a pre-press copy, showing the
book's final form (we planned to have published copies there, but we'll
now print a few weeks later and pay a more reasonable price) may contact
us for viewing off-site from the convention.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Kevin Mowery
[lots of preliminaries leading to the products no-no's for GenCon]
: Portrays mutilation or open torture (we missed these, damn).
In art or in words? Either way, just add in an example where a
character uses willpower of some sort to resist giving away information
while electrified nipple clamps are applied, and you can offend them on
all fronts.
: Portrays nudity (oops)
: Portrays any current religion in a negative capacity (uh-oh)
: Portrays any older religion as an ongoing and useful activity (got us there)
The last two have me confused. Older religion than what? Any
current religion? Shamanism is still practiced. Or do they mean any
mainstream religion? In which case, I'd like to cite the inclusion of
several pantheons in "Legends and Lore"...
: Portarys any law enforcement individual in a derogatory manner (well...
: we're not kind to authority)
Who is?
: Uses bad language (that's us)
That's *lots* of game companies. And a good majority of *gamers*.
: All that, and it can be used diceless.
: David Berkman
: Backstage Press
--
Kevin Mowery --- kemo...@freenet.columbus.oh.us__________________________
"We come into this world naked, covered in our own blood, and screaming in
terror--and it doesn't have to stop there if you know how to live right."
--Dana Gould
Kevin Mowery
: jsn...@netcom.com (John R. Snead) writes:
: >For anyone not aware, you can't have a product at Gencon that:
: >
: >>Portrays any older religion as an ongoing and useful activity (got us there)
: >
: >You must be kidding. What exactly does that mean exactly? You mean if you
: >put a game in a modern day setting and have people who are part of a Roman
: >Mystery cult you can't play it a Gencon?
: You might be a member of an older religion if:
: You think that bathing in the blood of an animal is a cool way to rid
: yourself of sins.
Whew! I just think it's a blast at parties. :)
: You invoke any deity whose name is not YHVH.
What about JHVH-1? It's close in form, if not function.
: >Has anyone told these folks their rules are amazingly silly?
: Of course, but do they listen? Of course not. Listening is for people who
: care about what the public thinks. TSR is just paranoid about being
: attacked by the Right Wing Fundamentalist Rabid Running Dog Capitalist
: "Give Me Your Money So I Can Sin In Luxury" Preachers.
I'm paranoid about that, too. I had to get rid of my bed because
they kept hiding under it to whisper rumors about Noah's Ark being on
Mount Ararat, but the local government keeping anyone from getting proof.
: Of course, they could work to educate people on what RPGs are, they
: choose to limit our options and drag our heads into the sand with theirs.
: Live-Action Role Playing a dangerous activity, indeed.
Hey, have you ever accidentally smacked knuckles with someone when
playing Rock-Scissors-Paper and you both put out a rock and misjudge the
distance to the other person's hand...
: >-Heron jsn...@netcom.com
: Deird'Re
Rick Jones
Kult? Heck, how did they let HoL in? A game who's 'claimer' says:
"This game will fuck you up."
and it goes downhill from there......
(Great game, tho. And Buttery WHoLsomeness is out too.
--
Rick Jones "You want to put that gun down, limey, and try me
ri...@blkbox.com many y mano? You want to see if you got the guts?"
Mey...@aol.com "No." <**BLAM**>
--Alec Swan, Firearm #4
Phil Masters
crime paying in the long term has an interesting corollary; in
crime-fighting scenarios, you can't have Kingpin-style master villains.
And those first-offender opponents can't really get up to much, given
all the other rules...
By the way, is the "No being nice about defunct religions" rule for
real? I'd not seen it mentioned before, and it's the one that TSR's own
products must break most blatantly and frequently.
But generally, it has to be said that TSR's stated rules are just too
wide, vague, and ill-considered to be taken seriously. I doubt that one
game or scenario at GenCon *fails* to break them somewhere along the
line. It's an obvious case of a cover-your-backside mentality being
taken to extremes, without thought of logic or consequence. (I suspect
that much the same goes for their net policy.)
--
Phil Masters
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Quotation confesses inferiority."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Letters and Social Aims", 1875.
Deird'Re M. Brooks
>Dave Van Domelen (dva...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>Yes, we've got the art from the comic books. We're missing the choice
>little numbers, like Fantasia Foust and the wziard who had to turn himself
>into a Hill Ogre to get it up, but enough of the less virulent pieces are
>in there to be too much. They didn't like the opne use of the word 'fuck'.
That's because the people who run GenCon are twisted little gits long on
control-urge and short on intelligence, creativity or tolerance.
>For anyone not aware, you can't have a product at Gencon that:
>Portrays mutilation or open torture (we missed these, damn).
There is always next year.
>Portrays nudity (oops)
Ooh...Something so disgusting it can't be borne...Well, something that is
born every day, I hear...humans in the flesh.
Is there some fundamental reason that people find their own _bodies_ to
be disgusting?
>Portrays any current religion in a negative capacity (uh-oh)
So...what you're saying is...we can't say bad things about Discordians?
>Portrays any older religion as an ongoing and useful activity (got us there)
And that Gnostics can't be present?
>Portarys any law enforcement individual in a derogatory manner (well...
>we're not kind to authority)
Except when shown to be the exception, rather than the rule.
So, what planet, exactly, are the folk from TSR _from_, anyway?
>Uses bad language (that's us)
"Bad language! BAD! No cookie!"
>All that, and it can be used diceless.
That's the biggest crime right there.
All I wanna know is this: How in the world did Kult slip by?
>David Berkman
>Backstage Press
Deird'Re
Kaviyd
>Have I been on Mars? What is the Ironwood sourcebook about that
>it is so controversial?
If it has anything to do with a comic book by the same name, I suspect
that "Ironwood" must be full
of sex and violence (especially sex).
Deird'Re M. Brooks
>For anyone not aware, you can't have a product at Gencon that:
>
>>Portrays any older religion as an ongoing and useful activity (got us there)
>
>You must be kidding. What exactly does that mean exactly? You mean if you
>put a game in a modern day setting and have people who are part of a Roman
>Mystery cult you can't play it a Gencon?
You might be a member of an older religion if:
You think that bathing in the blood of an animal is a cool way to rid
yourself of sins.
You engage in ritual sacrifice of your king.
You invoke any deity whose name is not YHVH.
>Has anyone told these folks their rules are amazingly silly?
Of course, but do they listen? Of course not. Listening is for people who
care about what the public thinks. TSR is just paranoid about being
attacked by the Right Wing Fundamentalist Rabid Running Dog Capitalist
"Give Me Your Money So I Can Sin In Luxury" Preachers.
Of course, they could work to educate people on what RPGs are, they
choose to limit our options and drag our heads into the sand with theirs.
Live-Action Role Playing a dangerous activity, indeed.
>-Heron jsn...@netcom.com
Deird'Re
Deird'Re M. Brooks
>Deird'Re M. Brooks (mar...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: jsn...@netcom.com (John R. Snead) writes:
>: You might be a member of an older religion if:
>: You think that bathing in the blood of an animal is a cool way to rid
>: yourself of sins.
> Whew! I just think it's a blast at parties. :)
Now washing yourself in the blood of a human, or perhaps the Son of
God...now *that's* modern.
>: You invoke any deity whose name is not YHVH.
> What about JHVH-1? It's close in form, if not function.
J is semantically a warped Y. :-)
>: >Has anyone told these folks their rules are amazingly silly?
>: Of course, but do they listen? Of course not. Listening is for people who
>: care about what the public thinks. TSR is just paranoid about being
>: attacked by the Right Wing Fundamentalist Rabid Running Dog Capitalist
>: "Give Me Your Money So I Can Sin In Luxury" Preachers.
> I'm paranoid about that, too. I had to get rid of my bed because
>they kept hiding under it to whisper rumors about Noah's Ark being on
>Mount Ararat, but the local government keeping anyone from getting proof.
That's enough to encourage a futon.
>: Of course, they could work to educate people on what RPGs are, they
>: choose to limit our options and drag our heads into the sand with theirs.
>: Live-Action Role Playing a dangerous activity, indeed.
> Hey, have you ever accidentally smacked knuckles with someone when
>playing Rock-Scissors-Paper and you both put out a rock and misjudge the
>distance to the other person's hand...
I once sprained my thumb. ;-)
>Kevin Mowery --- kemo...@freenet.columbus.oh.us__________________________
Deird'Re
Deird'Re M. Brooks
>Deird'Re M. Brooks (mar...@netcom.com) wrote:
>> All I wanna know is this: How in the world did Kult slip by?
>Kult? Heck, how did they let HoL in? A game who's 'claimer' says:
> "This game will fuck you up."
>and it goes downhill from there......
>(Great game, tho. And Buttery WHoLsomeness is out too.
Sounds like a potential agenda here, with broadly defined rules which can
apply to any game, if they really care to try.
Deird'Re
Andrew Finch
: Kult? Heck, how did they let HoL in? A game who's 'claimer' says:
: "This game will fuck you up."
Kult barely made it, and they were thinking of banning it. HoL skinned
its way through as well. We went right over the top with Ironwood. GenCon
is obviously willing to let its rules on violence slide, while we tried
to cross the iron gate of sexual content. I can actually see their point.
Americans have always been much more accepting of violence than nudity.
Mutilation is all right as long as we know it's 'just pretend'. Show a
female breast though, and it's all over. GenCon is unwilling to take the
heat the product might generate for them, and we have no right to ask
them to. I don't agree with their stance, but I will abide by it. It's
their con.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
js2...@nyssa.swt.edu
> For anyone not aware, you can't have a product at Gencon that:
>
>>Portrays any older religion as an ongoing and useful activity (got us there)
>
> You must be kidding. What exactly does that mean exactly? You mean if you
> put a game in a modern day setting and have people who are part of a Roman
> Mystery cult you can't play it a Gencon?
>
>
>
>
The one that really struck me was the one against portraying contemporary
religions in a negative light. That's one I wasn't expecting. I don't care
what you do with your book/campaign/etc., that' your biz, but I think it's a
good move for GenCon to avoid controversy wherever possible. There's no need
to go ticking Christians, or Bhuddists, or Hare Krishnas, off.
Tired. Hoping I don't say anything that pisses anybody off.
Wraith
JS2...@swt.edu
Canticle
given their reasons for not wanting certain products there, I don't doubt
some of the stuff I wear might come off as contrary to their personal
standards. Nah, it's not too sexy ;).
Just curious, 'cause I got tossed out of school once for wearing one of
my homemade t-shirts.
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
{}Jeff Scott Franzmann {} Twinkle, twinkle, little bat {}
{}Internet Representative {} How I wonder where you're at, {}
{}Campaign Outfitters {} Up above the world so high {}
{}Winnipeg, Manitoba {} Like a tea tray in the sky... {}
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
Opinions expressed above are not those of Campaign Outfitters. They're mine
Piperoglou Stefanos
= Rick Jones (ri...@blkbox.com) wrote:
= : Kult? Heck, how did they let HoL in? A game who's 'claimer' says:
= : "This game will fuck you up."
= Kult barely made it, and they were thinking of banning it. HoL skinned
= its way through as well. We went right over the top with Ironwood. GenCon
= is obviously willing to let its rules on violence slide, while we tried
= to cross the iron gate of sexual content. I can actually see their point.
= Americans have always been much more accepting of violence than nudity.
= Mutilation is all right as long as we know it's 'just pretend'. Show a
= female breast though, and it's all over. GenCon is unwilling to take the
= heat the product might generate for them, and we have no right to ask
= them to. I don't agree with their stance, but I will abide by it. It's
= their con.
If they cracked down on violence, how would they permit a game were you
are a "fighter" that gains "levels" by killing people of the opposite
"alignment"? :-)
(Oh sure there are awards for roleplaying in AD&D. If you roleplay
enough to get you an Academy Award for 2 years non-stop you *might*
amass half the experience you get from killing a dragon).
--
_________________________ _____________________________________
____/ Stephanos J. Piperoglou \____/ sneak...@prometheus.hol.gr \____
~~~~\(or just Steve for short)/~~~~\ http://www.hol.gr/people/sneakabout /~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Home Page not up yet - so why not visit my ever-changing .plan? Finger me NOW!
"Comparisons are odious" - Shakespeare
GC3.0: GCS/S/L/PA/M/P d s++:++ a16 C++++ UL++>++++ P+ L+++>++++ E+ W+++ N+ K
w--- O M+ !V PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5++ X+ R+++ tv b++ DI? D+ G++ e>++++ h! r y?
...QED
Bruce Baugh
>The one that really struck me was the one against portraying contemporary
>religions in a negative light.
I wonder if that applies just to BATF-approved religions....:-)
bru...@teleport.com _____________ http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab/
List Manager, Christlib, for Christian and libertarian concerns
Preview S.M. Stirling's forthcoming novel DRAKON at my home page
"Encrypt! Encrypt! OK! All-One-Key-Steganography-Privacy!
God's law prevents decryption above 1042 bytes - Exceptions? None!"
Shawn Metcalf
>Uh, so does like this mean there's a dress code at GenCon too?
Yes - no military uniforms dating later than 1900.
>Just curious, 'cause I got tossed out of school once for wearing one of
>my homemade t-shirts.
You're probably okay as long as it isn't covered with swearing and/or racial
slurs. I assume your "homemade" T-shirts don't contain such material.
- Shawn Metcalf
Kevin Mowery
Distribution:
Deird'Re M. Brooks (mar...@netcom.com) wrote:
: kemo...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Kevin Mowery) writes:
: >Deird'Re M. Brooks (mar...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >: jsn...@netcom.com (John R. Snead) writes:
: >: You might be a member of an older religion if:
: >: You think that bathing in the blood of an animal is a cool way to rid
: >: yourself of sins.
: > Whew! I just think it's a blast at parties. :)
: Now washing yourself in the blood of a human, or perhaps the Son of
: God...now *that's* modern.
Well, what if you're *accidentally* washed in blood? We are
gamers, after all, and sometimes ya hit a real good artery on the
sacrificial victim, and...
: >: You invoke any deity whose name is not YHVH.
: > What about JHVH-1? It's close in form, if not function.
: J is semantically a warped Y. :-)
Yeah, but I'm curious about the GenCon legality of any game where
god was actually a space monster/satellite. I had a slew of SubGenius
adventures in Lords of Creation (Avalon Hill).
: >: >Has anyone told these folks their rules are amazingly silly?
: >: Of course, but do they listen? Of course not. Listening is for people who
: >: care about what the public thinks. TSR is just paranoid about being
: >: attacked by the Right Wing Fundamentalist Rabid Running Dog Capitalist
: >: "Give Me Your Money So I Can Sin In Luxury" Preachers.
: > I'm paranoid about that, too. I had to get rid of my bed because
: >they kept hiding under it to whisper rumors about Noah's Ark being on
: >Mount Ararat, but the local government keeping anyone from getting proof.
: That's enough to encourage a futon.
That's what I got. Mainly because the waterbed burst for no very
good reason, but then I found the drowned fundies in the framework, so I
didn't get another.
: >: Of course, they could work to educate people on what RPGs are, they
: >: choose to limit our options and drag our heads into the sand with theirs.
: >: Live-Action Role Playing a dangerous activity, indeed.
: > Hey, have you ever accidentally smacked knuckles with someone when
: >playing Rock-Scissors-Paper and you both put out a rock and misjudge the
: >distance to the other person's hand...
: I once sprained my thumb. ;-)
: >Kevin Mowery --- kemo...@freenet.columbus.oh.us__________________________
: Deird'Re
Canticle
> Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> wrote:
> >Uh, so does like this mean there's a dress code at GenCon too?
> Yes - no military uniforms dating later than 1900.
Guess that includes SS field jackets with graffiti on the back, eh? :)
> >Just curious, 'cause I got tossed out of school once for wearing one of
> >my homemade t-shirts.
> You're probably okay as long as it isn't covered with swearing and/or racial
> slurs. I assume your "homemade" T-shirts don't contain such material.
Nope. 'God Doesn't Like It'. That was it. 'course, it was a Lutheran
school, so I guess it's understandable :).
> - Shawn Metcalf
Greywolf
> By the way, is the "No being nice about defunct religions" rule for
> real? I'd not seen it mentioned before, and it's the one that TSR's own
> products must break most blatantly and frequently.
I've been /wondering/ when somebody would question that. Of course, who knows?
Maybe it /is/ real. I sincerely doubt it, though, given all the pantheons of
gods running about. However, it seems that some folks have been quite happy to
pounce upon this, making jokes about bathing in the blood of the Son of God,
etc., etc. (Boy, we are such /sensitive/ and /tolerant/ people.)
Okay, so according to our favorite diceless advocate, this comic book series
that the game is based upon involves at some point a wizard turning himself
into an ogre to "get it up"? This sort of reminds me of that poster who was
bragging to the newsgroup about how his character was castrated and then had an
ogre's ... organ ... attached in its place. I'm not quite sure why this comic
book (and the resulting game) deserves more respect.
--
-Jordan PEACO...@cobra.uni.edu New alternate e-mail address: ..
T. Jordan "Greywolf" Peacock tp1...@cedarnet.org .OO.
I love God, family, friends, unicorns, wolves, LARPs, RPGs, minis, O/\O
doodling, sculpting, writing, old cars, meks, and Baskin Robbins! =) ~~
Mike Cule
peaco...@cobra.uni.edu "Greywolf" writes:
> Okay, so according to our favorite diceless advocate, this comic book series
> that the game is based upon involves at some point a wizard turning himself
> into an ogre to "get it up"? This sort of reminds me of that poster who was
> bragging to the newsgroup about how his character was castrated and then had an
> ogre's ... organ ... attached in its place. I'm not quite sure why this comic
> book (and the resulting game) deserves more respect.
Because it is witty, charming and beautifully drawn. Honestly. The scene with
the flying elephant is a wonderful panorama. (And comes in the middle of a very
nice orgy scene as well...)
By the way is there any chance Theatrix will distribute this one in the UK?
Or will the dreaded Customs and Excise decide this is not to be?
--
Mike Cule
Actor and Genius.
AKA Theophilus, Prince-Archbishop of the Far Isles
(Arms: Purpure, an open book proper, without clasps. On the dexter page the
Greek letter Alpha or. On the sinister page the letter Omega of the same.
Motto: nulla spes sit in resistendo.)
Ask me about the Far Isles Medieval Society:
Better living through pan-medieval anachronisms.
John P. Raynor
Distribution:
Phil Masters (Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Somebody did once point out that TSR's rule about scenarios not showing
: crime paying in the long term has an interesting corollary; in
: crime-fighting scenarios, you can't have Kingpin-style master villains.
: And those first-offender opponents can't really get up to much, given
: all the other rules...
I wonder how T.S.R. reconciles it's "crime does not pay" clause with a
character class whose primary abilities seem to be picking pockets,
cutting purses, stabbing from behind, climbing up walls and through
second-story windows, and opening locks without the proper keys (the
"Thief"). And then there's the variant of this character class, whose
primary function seems to be murder (the "Assassin").
- J. Raynor
Andrew Finch
: ogre's ... organ ... attached in its place. I'm not quite sure why this comic
: book (and the resulting game) deserves more respect.
Because Bill Willingham is a great writer, a funny guy, and an excellent
artist. But you can get a cheap preview just by picking up an issue of
Ironwood, and see for yourself. If you liked The Elementals, you'll
probably really enjoy Ironwood.
David
Andrew Finch
: By the way is there any chance Theatrix will distribute this one in the UK?
: Or will the dreaded Customs and Excise decide this is not to be?
We're already distrubted in the U.K. (some distributor picked up 72
books), so it's likely we'll be shipping Ironwood over there as well.
Now, as for actually finding a copy, for that you have to convince the
distributor to buy a few more, so they can actually land on shelves.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Deird'Re M. Brooks
>: > Whew! I just think it's a blast at parties. :)
>: Now washing yourself in the blood of a human, or perhaps the Son of
>: God...now *that's* modern.
I should of course clarify that this is only _symbolic_, and you don't
bathe in it, you drink it, but hey...
> Well, what if you're *accidentally* washed in blood? We are
>gamers, after all, and sometimes ya hit a real good artery on the
>sacrificial victim, and...
Well, then you'd better start reciting whatever it is you recite.
>: >: You invoke any deity whose name is not YHVH.
>: > What about JHVH-1? It's close in form, if not function.
>: J is semantically a warped Y. :-)
> Yeah, but I'm curious about the GenCon legality of any game where
>god was actually a space monster/satellite. I had a slew of SubGenius
>adventures in Lords of Creation (Avalon Hill).
What if it's a game where god is a small hamster named "Phil."
>: That's enough to encourage a futon.
> That's what I got. Mainly because the waterbed burst for no very
>good reason, but then I found the drowned fundies in the framework, so I
>didn't get another.
Those're worse than rats.
Eric L. Sarlin
Brooks) wrote:
> Of course, but do they listen? Of course not. Listening is for people who
> care about what the public thinks. TSR is just paranoid about being
> attacked by the Right Wing Fundamentalist Rabid Running Dog Capitalist
> "Give Me Your Money So I Can Sin In Luxury" Preachers.
Hey gang--While I admire (and share) the spirit of a lot of these GenCon
bashing posts, we, as gamers cannot ignore the Fundamentalists out there
who would shut us down. While perhaps GenCon wimped out a bit--certainly,
GenCon-ers were safe, since few fundamentalist-types would actually read
about whatever they protest--it doesn't take a great sociologist to see
that gamers come under the attack of fundamentalists, parents groups,
PTA's, and so on.
While the overall momentum of these groups is by and large dying (at least
in the eyes of the media, and thus in the eyes of America), paying
attention to and combatting the efforts of these groups ensures the good
health of our hobby. Fight dat fundamentalist power....
Note that this comes from a guy whose grandfather forbade him from playing
D&D after he watched _Mazes and Monsters_ on tv. A pox on the talentless
Gump-portraying toad!!! Fortunately for me, I ignored my grandfather and
am now enjoying my fifteenth year as a gamer!!
els
js2...@tegan.swt.edu
I didn't know the ATF approved of any religions (other than politics or gun
control).
Wraith
JS2...@swt.edu
Mr. Tines
In article <3ubc65$e6c...@ip-pdx2-19.teleport.com>
bru...@teleport.com "Bruce Baugh" writes:
> In article <1995Jul1...@nyssa.swt.edu>, js2...@nyssa.swt.edu wrote:
>
> >The one that really struck me was the one against portraying contemporary
> >religions in a negative light.
>
> I wonder if that applies just to BATF-approved religions....:-)
This is almost certainly the case. Otherwise they'd have to say nice things
about Satanists and Scientologists, those both being contemporary.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6ui
iQCVAgUBMAq+7YoUd45Z7dNFAQEVkAP/SVfJzz/Q+gZmkfhqOIivrbHX00OVW2gK
gHbhnaZlCary9Xps5wWxK8odkJ/hy4xOFDpEVtie92t2K22ulXz2pVPD9l7vAMta
CLyg1Ms8AGCKYxFb6PB34oe9LXSoj4b0pPXCsXOVqWRqDNpcJZEDku7sCjh+1ug9
Ea+mDoGwTvw=
=qVCI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
_______ PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< "So. Who is the real Mr. Tines?"
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (PGP preferred on principle)
Bill Seurer
|> On 16 Jul 1995, Shawn Metcalf wrote:
|>
|> > Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> wrote:
|> > >Uh, so does like this mean there's a dress code at GenCon too?
|>
|> > Yes - no military uniforms dating later than 1900.
|>
|> Guess that includes SS field jackets with graffiti on the back, eh? :)
Undoubtedly.
BTW, every SF and/or gaming convention I have been to lately have had this
exact same (ok, the date varies a bit) rule. I wonder if there wasn't
some Big Stink about uniforms at some past convention. Anyone know?
--
- Bill Seurer Language and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
Business: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com Home: BillS...@aol.com
Lydia Leong
>For anyone not aware, you can't have a product at Gencon that:
>
What about Call of Cthulhu?
What about TSR's own Dark Sun, for that matter, which has the nasty
Aztec-like priests who torture people? (See the first book of the Prism
Pentad, say, which has the little worm which the priests shove up some
poor guy's nose, which will slowly eat his brain out over the course
of the next few weeks?)
>Portrays nudity (oops)
But Clyde Caldwell paintings, not to mention that awful cover of the
new Gateway RPG (the one with the spray-on chainmail and the chick
whose body is torqued in such a way that they can get _both_ her
large breasts and butt), are both okay, eh?
Heck, there are a not-insignificant number of fantasy art dealers at
cons, specifically GenCon, which _do_ portray partial or complete
nudity. (Heck, I saw something at Origins this past weekend that was
blatantly, openly pornographic.)
Oh yeah, and speaking of Gatewar, let's not forget the "racial traits"
table that includes, "large breasts". One really has to wonder about
the juveniles that put _this_ one out.
>Portrays any current religion in a negative capacity (uh-oh)
How are HOL and Kult getting by this?
>Portrays any older religion as an ongoing and useful activity (got us there)
Buh.
Like, what constitutes an "older religion", as opposed to a
"current religion"?
>Portarys any law enforcement individual in a derogatory manner (well...
>we're not kind to authority)
Once again, how is HOL getting by this? Over the Edge / On the Edge?
Kult? Any of White Wolf's Storyteller games?
>Uses bad language (that's us)
Seems to be an awful lot of profanity in an awful lot of modern games,
not to mention novels and comic books that are sold at GenCon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lydia Leong - l...@graphics.cis.upenn.edu - http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~lwl/
Andy Lucas
more respect.
That was my first reaction to the prospect of Ironwood becoming a rpg as
well. But then I thought about it a bit. The world in the comic is very
well thought out, as is all of willingham's work. The concept of a
modern society based upon magic and featuring magical creatures is well
founded in rpg & fantasy works, Shadowrun for example. True the comic
does revolve around the various sexual exploits of the main characters,
but the rpg doesn't have to. Can you imagine a bunch of typical gamers
disrobing for an x-rated rpg session. Unwashed masses indeed.
Personally, I'm willing to give the new kid on the block the benefit of
the doubt. I hope that others will keep an open mind as well. If it's
not your cup of tea don't drink it!
Canticle
> bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
> >Dave Van Domelen (dva...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
> >Yes, we've got the art from the comic books. We're missing the choice
> >little numbers, like Fantasia Foust and the wziard who had to turn himself
> >into a Hill Ogre to get it up, but enough of the less virulent pieces are
> >in there to be too much. They didn't like the opne use of the word 'fuck'.
Hmmm...I'll wager they've used it many times themselves while organizing
the thing.
> That's because the people who run GenCon are twisted little gits long on
> control-urge and short on intelligence, creativity or tolerance.
I don't know them, and can't comment. Why are they like this, if it is
indeed true?
> >For anyone not aware, you can't have a product at Gencon that:
> >Portrays mutilation or open torture (we missed these, damn).
Hmmm...Better get rid of AD&D. We're talking about an entire system based
on mutilating 'monsters' to aquire experience points. The rewards for
destruction are bountiful.
Oh, and gotta lose Rolemaster too...I mean, you can actually lose limbs
in that one. Mutilation if ever I saw it.
> >Portrays nudity (oops)
This from the company that produced the 'Women of Fantasy' calendar? Uh,
'scuse me?
> Is there some fundamental reason that people find their own _bodies_ to
> be disgusting?
It's a North American phenomenae...even more so in the United States than
Canada, believe it or not (nudity in prime time on Channel 7 [the French
language channel} up here). I find something incredibly ironic about a
people that condemn nudity and the portrayal of love making and such, and
take gleeful delight in shows which average about 40-50 acts of violence
an hour.
> >Portrays any current religion in a negative capacity (uh-oh)
> >Portrays any older religion as an ongoing and useful activity (got us there)
What? That sound...I believe it's the sound of hypocrisy. Someone want to
tell the folks who worship the Aesir that they're not welcome at GenCon?
> >Portarys any law enforcement individual in a derogatory manner (well...
> >we're not kind to authority)
Hmmm, that lets out any sort of concept of law enforcement gone bad
scenarios.
> Except when shown to be the exception, rather than the rule.
> So, what planet, exactly, are the folk from TSR _from_, anyway?
A politically correct, sterile, loveless one, apparently. I find these
rules both bizarre and contradictory.
> >Uses bad language (that's us)
*blink*
The more I read, the more I become stunned.
Canticle
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950716...@access.mbnet.mb.ca>, Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> writes:
> |> On 16 Jul 1995, Shawn Metcalf wrote:
> |> > Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> wrote:
> |> > >Uh, so does like this mean there's a dress code at GenCon too?
> |> > Yes - no military uniforms dating later than 1900.
> |> Guess that includes SS field jackets with graffiti on the back, eh? :)
> Undoubtedly.
Thought so :).
> BTW, every SF and/or gaming convention I have been to lately have had this
> exact same (ok, the date varies a bit) rule. I wonder if there wasn't
> some Big Stink about uniforms at some past convention. Anyone know?
I'm willing to bet a lung that someone dressed up in period uniform for a
costume show, and that period uniform happened to be an SS officer. Or a
Brownshirt. Or something involving a swastika. Common sense wasn't doled
out to everyone in equal portions, I've found.
Shawn Metcalf
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950716...@access.mbnet.mb.ca>, Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> writes:
>|> On 16 Jul 1995, Shawn Metcalf wrote:
>|>
>|> > Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> wrote:
>|> > >Uh, so does like this mean there's a dress code at GenCon too?
>|>
>|> > Yes - no military uniforms dating later than 1900.
>|>
>|> Guess that includes SS field jackets with graffiti on the back, eh? :)
>
>Undoubtedly.
>
>exact same (ok, the date varies a bit) rule. I wonder if there wasn't
>some Big Stink about uniforms at some past convention. Anyone know?
Just a guess, but I would say that there are probably two reasons:
1) No game/SF con organizer wants to deal with some idiot showing up in a Nazi uniform.
2) On a broader note, no con organizer wants to deal with, say, one guy who shows up in a Serbian army uniform, and another guy who =
wears his Croation uniform (for example).
Presumably, there aren't any military uniforms from countries before 1900 that will inflame people enough to start a fight.
And as for this rule being around "lately", I can remember this going back at least five years (and before that I never read GenCon'=
s registration book that closely). Can anyone out there shed some light on how long this has been around?
- Shawn Metcalf
Phil Masters
Message-ID: <795049...@philm.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thursday, Jul 20, 1995 23.08.44
Organization: P.J.Masters (Software & Writing) Ltd.
Reply-To: Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
Lines: 43
I've just received the following from someone who claims inside
contacts at TSR, and who prefers to remain anonymous, but who gave me
permission to quote. Obviously, it may be worth precisely as much as
any other anonymous second-hand statement, but I'll pass it on anyhow:
"The actual origin of [the ethics code] is Tom McLaughlin, who wrote
it in May of '93 and slipped it in as a letter to the Judges at GEN CON.
This came as shock to Keith Polster, the gaming director of GEN CON at
the time. You have to realize that TSR is a schizophrenic
organization. There are "gamers" and "suits". The suits are the
sticks-in-the-mud; the gamers are often fairly cool. The sides don't
talk to each other much, as far as I can tell, and they like each other
even less."
"So, TSR's right hand often ignores what it's left hand is doing, or works
to undo it."
Personally, I tend to regard all claims of a "gamers/suits" divide with
suspicion - real life is rarely that simple. (Some suits play games,
some gamers have material ambitions.) But, like any other stereotype,
it probably has *some* basis in reality.
Certainly, this story explains a lot about the code - primarily, the
fact that it is blazingly ignorant of games not only as they are
played, but as TSR sells them. Any active gamer with half a brain could
have composed a code that might not have been perfect - too many people
would object to *any* rules on principle, rightly or wrongly - but
which would have been far less blatantly untenable and a lot more
friendly-sounding.
The question in this case is, why haven't TSR had the sense and grace
to withdraw their mistake and come up with something less silly? Are
the "suits" both arrogant and deaf? Or is it the sort of "never
apologise, never explain" mentality that seems (to judge by this group)
to pervade the hobby at large?
--
Phil Masters
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Quotation confesses inferiority."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Letters and Social Aims", 1875.
Paul A.K. Amala
setn...@ix.netcom.com (setnaffa) wrote, concerning the rules for
not wearing comtemporary uniforms at gaming conventions:
>In the '70s and '80s, a small contingent of gamers started showing up
>in Nazi uniforms, marching in formation, carrying Nazi flags, singing
>Nazi songs like the "Horst Wessel" and "Deutscheland uber Alles",
>giving the Nazi salute, **and** **sometimes** **carrying** **loaded**
>**guns**.
[etc.]
Perhaps we live on different planets.... {stranger things have been
know to be true!}
I've been going to gaming cons since the early 70's. I've never once
seen this type of crap, and I've been to a lot of cons all across the
country. I'd be interested in knowing which specific cons you observed
this type of behavior at....
In the early 70's I did see the occasional person in a WWII military
uniform; some U.S., some German. I even saw a Japanese Army uniform once.
Once (_once_) I saw someone in a U.S. Army uniform with a mock .45 side
arm; he was asked to remove it from the site and did so. This was at a
Winter Con in Detroit (Oakland U. actually) in the late 70's (if my
imperfect memory is serving me well.)
It was in the late 70's and early 80's that a lot of cons which I
frequented started saying no to costumes of this nature. Some even said
no to all costumes (except for the PIB's (*) - if you want to call that a
costume) just to be safe. I'm not sure if this was fallout from all the
bad publicity that D&D (tm) was getting at that time (after all, Michigan
State Univ. had all the problems with their steam tunnels, and a missing
deranged student about this time.) About this time even Sci-Fi Cons were
starting to impose limits on costumes; and these cons were the happy haven
of weirdness! I think part of this was that the organizers where afraid
that any reporters/parents/site officials etc. would form bad opinions of
our hobby if they were to see Darth Vader strolling down the hall next
to Mussolini - not to mention the possibility of copyright/trademark
infringments! {Oh, sorry, wrong thread.}
Personally, I think it just reflects the overall universal concern for
political correctness that was coming about in the 70's and 80's; heaven
forbid any one being allow to do something that "might" offend someone
else. After all, we need to be "protected" from bad "things" because we
are obviously not capable of figuring out what is right and wrong for
ourselves. And probably the con organizers where afraid of lawsuits - "I
saw the soldier coming around the corner with a pistol and it startled me
so much that I spilled the hot coffee on my lap causing great pain and
suffering; that's why I think {fill in blank} owe me 2.3 million dollars."
Paul Amala
am...@llnl.gov
(*) People in Black -> don't be offended, I'm one too. I prevents
me from having to make hard fashion decisions so early in the morning.
setnaffa
(Bill Seurer) writes:
>
[snip, snip]
>BTW, every SF and/or gaming convention I have been to lately have had
this
>exact same (ok, the date varies a bit) rule. I wonder if there wasn't
>some Big Stink about uniforms at some past convention. Anyone know?
In the '70s and '80s, a small contingent of gamers started showing up
in Nazi uniforms, marching in formation, carrying Nazi flags, singing
Nazi songs like the "Horst Wessel" and "Deutscheland uber Alles",
giving the Nazi salute, **and** **sometimes** **carrying** **loaded**
**guns**.
It was bad for business (the neonazis spent all their money on
uniforms). It was bad for the hobby (the normal people started staying
away in droves). It really made people sick (something about having
older Jewish friends with concentration camp tattoes).
And, let's face it: Weapons have no place at a gaming convention.
So, the dress-up-as-your-favorite-genocidal-murderer crowd were
encouraged to express their 1st Amendment rights elsewhere... :-)
Shawn Metcalf
>In article <3unmg3$q...@topcat.uk.gdscorp.com>,
> ste...@uk.gdscorp.com (Steve Gilham) wrote:
><Shawn Metcalf (DeadB...@aol.com) wrote:
><> Presumably, there aren't any military uniforms from countries before
><> 1900 that will inflame people enough to start a fight.
><
><preferred) happen in 1860-odd and doesn't it still raise passions?
>
>The American Civil War (and that is what it is called) is a VERY popular hobby
>subject in the USA, both Union and Reb, and I've seen precious little serious
>anger raised over the ACW guys and their activities.
Very true. It's been long enough since the Civil War that everyone who was in it is long
dead. That's probably the thinking behind the ban on 1900+ uniforms. Presumably, at
the 2095 GenCon no one will care about WWII uniforms (except maybe Nazi ones. It
seems that they might be the exception).
>The only problem I've
>seen is when somebody displays the Southern Cross flag, so some ACW Rebs have
>taken to flying either the Stars and Bars or the Bonny Blue Flag.
Interesting. I know what the Stars and Bars looks like (it was top of the General Lee on
"The Dukes of Hazzard", right?), but what do the other two look like, and what's the
difference WRT inflamed passions?
- Shawn Metcalf
Alison Brooks
bj...@cornell.edu "Bryan J. Maloney" writes:
> In article <3unmg3$q...@topcat.uk.gdscorp.com>,
> ste...@uk.gdscorp.com (Steve Gilham) wrote:
> <Shawn Metcalf (DeadB...@aol.com) wrote:
> <> Presumably, there aren't any military uniforms from countries before
> <> 1900 that will inflame people enough to start a fight.
> <
> <Hmm, wasn't the War between The States (or whatever euphemism is
> <preferred) happen in 1860-odd and doesn't it still raise passions?
> <
As one who has written professionally on the subject of the American Civil War,
I would like to point out that the "War Between The States" is terminology used
by sympathisers of the Confederate viewpoint. The reason for this is that the
Confederate viewpoint would have one believe that the war was a simple matter
between various discrete, unified and essentially independant entities known
as States. As even the briefest knowledge of the history of Missouri, Kentucky,
Tennessee, West Virginia (not a State in 1861, but became one as a result of
the War) and especially Kansas would demonstrate, this is just not true. Indeed,
for a variety of complex reasons, the Loyal Slave States of Missouri and
Kentucky were counted as two of the thirteen stars in the Confederate flag.
>
> The American Civil War (and that is what it is called) is a VERY popular hobby
> subject in the USA, both Union and Reb, and I've seen precious little serious
> anger raised over the ACW guys and their activities. The only problem I've
> seen is when somebody displays the Southern Cross flag, so some ACW Rebs have
> taken to flying either the Stars and Bars or the Bonny Blue Flag.
Precious little anger? As a re-enactor, it is common knowledge that it is
positively dangerous in certain cities in Southern USA for a re-enactor to
wear a Union uniform. A reputable re-enactor's magazine described how one
event got around this: each union soldier visiting town was accompanied by
a confederate, to ward off violence.
Precious little anger? You try singing "Marching Through Georgia" while
wearing Union uniform in Atlanta sometime.
--
Alison Brooks
Karen J. Cravens
am...@llnl.gov (Paul A.K. Amala) wrote:
> Personally, I think it just reflects the overall universal concern for
>political correctness that was coming about in the 70's and 80's; heaven
>forbid any one being allow to do something that "might" offend someone
>else. After all, we need to be "protected" from bad "things" because we
I always figured (and maybe this comes from going to too many cons in
Omaha, then-headquarters of SAC, and Wichita, with another large
airbase, but...) that it was to avoid nasty legal hassles with actual
military forces. An ex-USAF friend of mine gave me his old BDUs for
paintball, and told me I had to take the insignias off them. Of course,
I always did think 1900 was a LITTLE excessive...
>ourselves. And probably the con organizers where afraid of lawsuits - "I
>saw the soldier coming around the corner with a pistol and it startled me
>so much that I spilled the hot coffee on my lap causing great pain and
>suffering; that's why I think {fill in blank} owe me 2.3 million dollars."
Now, there's a thought. I was once coming off an elevator at a con and
was greeted by a person in a cape and Apache moccasins, with every inch
of exposed skin covered in black shoe polish, down on one knee pointing
a cardboard gun at me and shouting "FREEZE!" If I hadn't already been
so annoyed by the in-your-way live-action game, I'd have laughed at him.
I hate to think what would have happened if I had been one of the
"normal" hotel guests...
Silver
--........................................................................
A man should live forever, or die trying.
Bryan J. Maloney
ste...@uk.gdscorp.com (Steve Gilham) wrote:
<Shawn Metcalf (DeadB...@aol.com) wrote:
<> Presumably, there aren't any military uniforms from countries before
<> 1900 that will inflame people enough to start a fight.
<
<Hmm, wasn't the War between The States (or whatever euphemism is
<preferred) happen in 1860-odd and doesn't it still raise passions?
<
The American Civil War (and that is what it is called) is a VERY popular hobby
subject in the USA, both Union and Reb, and I've seen precious little serious
anger raised over the ACW guys and their activities. The only problem I've
seen is when somebody displays the Southern Cross flag, so some ACW Rebs have
taken to flying either the Stars and Bars or the Bonny Blue Flag.
--
I could tell by his slurred speech, the heavy glaze over his eyes,
and his inability to stand straight that he was under the influence
of a powerful narcotic.
That, or he was a graduate student.
GS$ d---(++) H++ S !g p? au() a- w+++ v+++ C++ UB+ P+ L 3 E N+++
K+++ W M+ V-- -po+ Y+ t+(--) 5++ j--(++) R+++(-) G'''' tv b+ !D
B--- e++>--- u** h----* f+ r+++ !n y++++**
Alison Brooks
> Alison Brooks <Ali...@flin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <3uorrl$l...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
> > bj...@cornell.edu "Bryan J. Maloney" writes:
> >
> >> In article <3unmg3$q...@topcat.uk.gdscorp.com>,
> >> ste...@uk.gdscorp.com (Steve Gilham) wrote:
> >> <Shawn Metcalf (DeadB...@aol.com) wrote:
> >> <> Presumably, there aren't any military uniforms from countries before
> >> <> 1900 that will inflame people enough to start a fight.
> >> <
> >> <Hmm, wasn't the War between The States (or whatever euphemism is
> >> <preferred) happen in 1860-odd and doesn't it still raise passions?
> >> <
> >
> >As one who has written professionally on the subject of the American Civil War,> >I would like to point out that the "War Between The States" is terminology used> >by sympathisers of the Confederate viewpoint.
> >
> Very true.
> >
> >> The American Civil War (and that is what it is called) is a VERY popular
> hobby
> >> subject in the USA, both Union and Reb, and I've seen precious little
> serious
> >> anger raised over the ACW guys and their activities. The only problem I've
> >> seen is when somebody displays the Southern Cross flag, so some ACW Rebs
> have
> >> taken to flying either the Stars and Bars or the Bonny Blue Flag.
> >
> >Precious little anger? You try singing "Marching Through Georgia" while
> >wearing Union uniform in Atlanta sometime.
>
> Irrelevant. We're talking about the act of wearing a uniform at a convention.
> No
> marching, no singing.
>
> I don't think wearing a Civil War uniform at such a convention would cause a
> serious
> problem. Adding additional elements to a hypothetical situation to make it a
> problem
> moves the topic outside that covered by the rec.games.frp.misc charter.
>
> - Shawn Metcalf
>
Well, either my memory is failing, or you've cut the portion of my post
where I cited the example of re-enactors in some Southern areas going around
in pairs - a Union soldier protected by a Confederate - outside the
re-enactment site, in order to prevent unpleasantness.
If re-enactors have to take such precautions, then I don't see that roleplayers
would be immune, WHICH IS THE RELEVANCE OF MY COMMENT TO THE NEWSGROUP. Cutting
my comments to make you look clever is pretty childish, isn't it.
Sorry, everyone else, for shouting.
Incidentally, I find it interesting that the ONLY pre-20th Century uniforms
that people might get worked up about are American Civil War. This says
something profound...
--
Alison Brooks
Shawn Metcalf
Bruce Baugh
Alison Brooks <Ali...@flin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:Incidentally, I find it interesting that the ONLY pre-20th Century uniforms
:that people might get worked up about are American Civil War. This says
:something profound...
America: We hold grudges better!
Actually, I'm told that one can get similar conflicts with the relevant
uniforms in Southeast Asia. And pre-20th century Armenian insignia can arouse
all sorts of interesting attention in Turkey and elsewhere.
Neither of those is likely at cons, of course.
Shawn Metcalf
>In article <3usl2j$p...@eddie.intr.net> DeadB...@aol.com "Shawn Metcalf" writes:
>
>where I cited the example of re-enactors in some Southern areas going around
>in pairs - a Union soldier protected by a Confederate - outside the
>re-enactment site, in order to prevent unpleasantness.
No, I cut it - comparing one guy walking around a game convention in a Civil War
uniform and a couple hundred marching in formation, acting like an invading army,
replete with guns, drums and the like, and then wandering around somebody's town
and running into angry people is silly.
We're talking (at least, we were) about why conventions ban certain uniforms and
allow others. That's all that matters in this discussion. I made the point that Civil War
uniforms wouldn't be a serious problem at game conventions, and I stick by it.
If you have an example of such uniforms causing problems at conventions, that would be
extremely relevant. Do you have such an example?
>If re-enactors have to take such precautions, then I don't see that roleplayers
>would be immune, WHICH IS THE RELEVANCE OF MY COMMENT TO THE NEWSGROUP. Cutting
>my comments to make you look clever is pretty childish, isn't it.
Not really. Just trying to keep posts down to a managable size by cutting extraneous
material.
>Incidentally, I find it interesting that the ONLY pre-20th Century uniforms
>that people might get worked up about are American Civil War. This says
>something profound...
Not really. So far, you're the only person here who's suggesting that Civil War uniforms
would be a problem at game conventions. Nobody else apparently does, including bad 'ol
TSR which is supposedly afraid of everything. Even they don't care.
Try again.
- Shawn Metcalf
Jon Hall
>> The American Civil War (and that is what it is called) is a VERY popular hobby
>> subject in the USA, both Union and Reb, and I've seen precious little serious
>> anger raised over the ACW guys and their activities. The only problem I've
>> seen is when somebody displays the Southern Cross flag, so some ACW Rebs have
>> taken to flying either the Stars and Bars or the Bonny Blue Flag.
>Precious little anger? As a re-enactor, it is common knowledge that it is
>positively dangerous in certain cities in Southern USA for a re-enactor to
>wear a Union uniform. A reputable re-enactor's magazine described how one
>event got around this: each union soldier visiting town was accompanied by
>a confederate, to ward off violence.
>Precious little anger? You try singing "Marching Through Georgia" while
>wearing Union uniform in Atlanta sometime.
>--
>Alison Brooks
Yep. And until the Reagan years, there were still districts in east Texas
where the general attitudes were dead-on Republican, yet they always voted
Democrat: still pissed off over the Civil War. Wars are always a touchier
subject for the losing side than the winning.
Jon Hall
Alison Brooks
> Not really. So far, you're the only person here who's suggesting that Civil War
> uniforms
> would be a problem at game conventions. Nobody else apparently does, including
> bad 'ol
> TSR which is supposedly afraid of everything. Even they don't care.
>
> Try again.
>
> - Shawn Metcalf
>
>
Gee, I twice point out that (allegedly) some re-enactments in the American
south have instituted "buddy" systems to allow individual federals to go into
town without being assaulted, and you twice confuse this with reaction to a
mass of federals acting aggressive.
What am I supposed to try again: to get over what I'm saying as opposed to
what you're trying to pretend I'm saying?
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
--
Alison Brooks
Alison Brooks
bru...@teleport.com "Bruce Baugh" writes:
>
> America: We hold grudges better!
>
> Actually, I'm told that one can get similar conflicts with the relevant
> uniforms in Southeast Asia. And pre-20th century Armenian insignia can arouse
> all sorts of interesting attention in Turkey and elsewhere.
>
Well, maybe it says something about how many times since the 1860s the USA as
a country has been genuinely threatened in war.
Armenians and so forth have so many more recent grudges that I don't suppose
19th Century insignia produce quite such a gut reaction...
--
Alison Brooks
Phil Masters
(Bruce Baugh) writes:
> :Incidentally, I find it interesting that the ONLY pre-20th Century
> :that people might get worked up about are American Civil War. This says
> :something profound...
>
Nah. Civil Wars *never end*.
I doubt that I could start a fight in the UK by espousing the "wrong" side
of our last little business - three centuries do blunt things a little. But
ask a moderately well-educated Briton which side they would have been on,
had they been alive at the time, and I'd guess that you'd get a quick and
specific response in, oh, 70-80% of cases.
Pathetic, really.
> ... And pre-20th century Armenian insignia can arouse
> all sorts of interesting attention in Turkey and elsewhere.
Given what went on in Armenia in the early part of this century, I'd be
very, very surprised if you couldn't obtain some very strong reactions by
raising the topic in certain areas.
Rodolfo Gabriele Rosini
<For anyone who's interetsed, GenCon has (understandably) banned Ironwood,
<the Theatrix world book, because it breaks every one of their stated
<guideline rules except the exposition of torture or mutilation. The book
<was hot enough that they have asked us not to advertise the product there
<either.
This could mean just one thing, that your game could be very interesting. I'm an italian
player, how could get a copy ???
Bye
Rodolfo/Lord Snow White
Bruce Baugh
Alison Brooks <Ali...@flin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:Armenians and so forth have so many more recent grudges that I don't suppose
:19th Century insignia produce quite such a gut reaction...
Well, friends of mine in high school once got beaten up by a Turkish gang for
being out in costumes with 19th century insignia on them. I wasn't speaking
hypothetically. I have no idea how often it occurs, of course, but I know that
it can because it does. Likewise, I know that insignia of the 12th/13th
century Armenian kingdom on tombstones are targets for defacing, having seen
it with mine own eyes.
Shawn Metcalf
>In article <3uv19t$5...@eddie.intr.net> DeadB...@aol.com "Shawn Metcalf" writes:
>
>> Not really. So far, you're the only person here who's suggesting that Civil War
>> uniforms
>> would be a problem at game conventions. Nobody else apparently does, including
>> bad 'ol
>> TSR which is supposedly afraid of everything. Even they don't care.
>>
>> Try again.
>>
>south have instituted "buddy" systems to allow individual federals to go into
>town without being assaulted, and you twice confuse this with reaction to a
>mass of federals acting aggressive.
Not at all; I'm just pointing out that a Civil War re-enactment and GenCon aren't the same
thing, and that the reaction a person wearing a Civil War uniform receives at one event
won't necessarily be the same as the reaction they get at the other.
>What am I supposed to try again: to get over what I'm saying as opposed to
>what you're trying to pretend I'm saying?
Nope. You're supposed to try and show why wearing a Civil War uniform to GenCon would
be a problem. Apparently, you're not going to.
- Shawn Metcalf
George W Harris
Civil War,> >I would like to point out that the "War Between The States"
is terminology used> >by sympathisers of the Confederate viewpoint. >> >
No, it isn't. "War Between the States" is used pretty
neutrally. For sympathisers of the Confederate viewpoint, the preferred
terms are "War of Northern Aggression" and "War of Southern Independence."
Oh, and hitting return every 70 or so characters would make your
text much more readable.
--
George W. Harris gha...@emerald.tufts.edu
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
Andrew Finch
: >For anyone who's interetsed, GenCon has (understandably) banned Ironwood,
: >the Theatrix world book, because it breaks every one of their stated
: >guideline rules except the exposition of torture or mutilation.
: Isn't Draganavon(sp?) circumsized? :)
Yes. Although how he got that way, I don't know. There are few Jews in
Avalon, and I don't think Dragavon is counted among them. There are a
fair number of Calvinists though, do they circumcize?
David
Bertil Jonell
>For anyone who's interetsed, GenCon has (understandably) banned Ironwood,
>the Theatrix world book, because it breaks every one of their stated
>guideline rules except the exposition of torture or mutilation.
Isn't Draganavon(sp?) circumsized? :)
>David Berkman
>Backstage Press
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
Bertil Jonell
>Bertil Jonell (d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se) wrote:
>: >guideline rules except the exposition of torture or mutilation.
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>: Isn't Draganavon(sp?) circumsized? :)
>
He spent an unspecified period of his youth on (this) Earth to
avoid dragon birth control, that could be it.
>David
Shawn Metcalf
>>In article <3usl2j$p...@eddie.intr.net> DeadB...@aol.com "Shawn
Metcalf" writes:
>>> >
>>> >As one who has written professionally on the subject of the American
>Civil War,> >I would like to point out that the "War Between The States"
>is terminology used> >by sympathisers of the Confederate viewpoint. >> >
>
> No, it isn't. "War Between the States" is used pretty
>neutrally. For sympathisers of the Confederate viewpoint, the preferred
>terms are "War of Northern Aggression" and "War of Southern Independence."
The above attribution is incorrect. I did not make the comment about the
use of the term "The War Between the States". Alison Brooks did.
> Oh, and hitting return every 70 or so characters would make your
>text much more readable.
Yep - the new version of Netscape I grabbed about a week ago doesn't
text-wrap for some reason. My own posts looked fine on my monitor, so
I didn't realize that there was a problem.
--
Shawn Metcalf, CEO DeadB...@aol.com
Omni Gaming Products o...@intr.net
Official Licensee of the Torg Role-Playing Game
Alison Brooks
bru...@teleport.com "Bruce Baugh" writes:
> Well, friends of mine in high school once got beaten up by a Turkish gang for
> being out in costumes with 19th century insignia on them. I wasn't speaking
> hypothetically. I have no idea how often it occurs, of course, but I know that
> it can because it does. Likewise, I know that insignia of the 12th/13th
> century Armenian kingdom on tombstones are targets for defacing, having seen
> it with mine own eyes.
>
Yukk. OK, I defer to your greater experience in this. Was this in the USA, or
where?
(Of course, in parts of Northern Ireland, wearing Orange in certain areas is
a provocative action, dating back 200 years, but then the reason the hatred
has been kept alive has been continuing oppression since then.)
--
Alison Brooks
Andrew Finch
: He spent an unspecified period of his youth on (this) Earth to
: avoid dragon birth control, that could be it.
You mean Dragavon let someone do that to him, as an adult... I don't want
to think about it. :)
David
Alison Brooks
> >> >As one who has written professionally on the subject of the American
> Civil War,> >I would like to point out that the "War Between The States"
> is terminology used> >by sympathisers of the Confederate viewpoint. >> >
>
> No, it isn't. "War Between the States" is used pretty
> neutrally. For sympathisers of the Confederate viewpoint, the preferred
> terms are "War of Northern Aggression" and "War of Southern Independence."
If true, then score one for the forces of inaccuracy and misleading
terminology. Shortly after the war, many terms to describe it were
used; from the North one had "War of the Rebellion", "War of Treason",
"War of Emancipation", "War of the Union" and similar. These
emphasised the war as being one of a struggle against treason and,
from the Abolitionists, a moral war to end slavery.
From the South, one had terms that described the war as a struggle
for independence and for the rights of States to secede. Thus one
had terms such as those you attribute, "Second Revolution", and
"War Between the States." Joe Johnston objected to the term the
War Between the States. He felt that it implied equality among
the different states, which he didn't agree with.
I described the term "War Between the States" as inaccurate and
misleading. This is because it implies that the States lined up
on one side or the other. While this may be essentially true for
States such as South Carolina or Massachusetts, for a number
of States, it just weren't so. For example, Missouri and Kentucky,
which both remained in the Union, were both given stars on the
Confederate flag. Regiments from these states fought on both
sides; guerilla warfare was endemic, and the whole suggestion
that the war was fought between states as though a state was
a single entity is nonsense when applied to these states.
Similar statements would also apply to Tennessee (where in the
East, there was strong pro-Union sentiment; in the West, pro
Confederate sentiment); West Virginia (which was a part of
Virginia at the start of the war; western Virginia was pro
Union, wished to secede from the Confederacy and remain in the
Union, and was only allowed to do this after Union armies
drove the Confederate forces out of the area); Kansas (remember
the term "Bleeding Kansas"?); Maryland (which remained in the
Union, but still managed to send a lot of troops South, and
was most noted for its Senators who made a number of speeches
that can only be described as naked, unadulterated treason.
These speeches would not have been treasonous by an individual,
but when spoken by a Senator who has oathed to work for the
Union of States, they are; and other States were also noted
for being divided.
To describe the War as being Between the States glosses over
the bitter divisions that occurred. It was, without question,
a Civil War. One only has to study the history of the border
states to realise that.
The Confederate viewpoint was that, since the war was about
State's Rights, emphasis on the simplification that States
chose one side or the other re-inforces that view. The
Northern viewpoint was that the States were not entitled to
secede except under rather more rigourous circumstances than
applied - essentially with the agreement of the other States.
In short, the Northern viewpoint was that States were
subordinate to Federal authority. As a digression, the
attitudes of the States were completely reversed when it came
to the subject of enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, where
Southerners insisted on the rights of Federal authority to
over-rule State Laws, and Northerners insisting on the sanctity
of State Law that didn't contravene Federal Law.
If "War Between the States" is used "pretty neutrally" in the
USA today, then I am saddened by the ignorance of the people
who use the term, because they have forgotten the lessons of
that war. They have simplified their own history to the point
of error.
Perhaps one concrete example might clear up the problem. The
town of Platte City, Missouri, was pro-Confederate. The Federal
regiment the 18th Missouri Infantry arrived in the town. On
discovering the sentiment of the town, the Colonel of the
regiment, Colonel Morgan, ordered the town to be burnt. The
town was so burnt. Missourians burnt the dwellings of fellow
Missourians to the ground.
For the border States, it was without question a Civil War. To
refer to it as anything other than as a Civil War seems to me
to be pointless and misleading; perhaps it is the taste for
pretentiousness (as common in the 1860s and 1870s as it is
today) that forces people to try and think of new names for
things that have perfectly good names already.
To summarise; "War Between the States" was originally a term
used by Confederate sympathisers. It is a misleading term,
because it does not describe the war as well as the "American
Civil War" does. I can not argue with you if you say that the
term is now used as you describe. If you are correct, then
the people who do this are abusing a term.
--
Alison Brooks
Bruce Baugh
Ali...@flin.demon.co.uk (Alison Brooks) wrote:
:In article <3v3js8$hjg...@ip-pdx1-24.teleport.com>
: bru...@teleport.com "Bruce Baugh" writes:
:
:> Well, friends of mine in high school once got beaten up by a Turkish gang
for
:> being out in costumes with 19th century insignia on them. I wasn't speaking
:> hypothetically. I have no idea how often it occurs, of course, but I know
that
:> it can because it does.
:Yukk. OK, I defer to your greater experience in this. Was this in the USA, or
:where?
Pasadena, California; definitely part of the US. And, like the Orange
situation in Ireland you refer to, there is of course continuing fresh
provocation on both sides of the Armenian/Turkish conflict. It would be
interesting to find out if, for example, insignia of anti-Meiji Restoration
groups is cause for trouble in Japan.
Bryan J. Maloney
As a native of the USA, born and raised in Indiana, I can attest that I was
taught my entire life that "War Between the States" was a Conferate
sympathizer term. In fact, a specific set of Bullwinkle cartoon episodes had
a running gag: Whenever somebody said the word "civil", regardless of the
context, a "Tennessee Colonel" type would come out and demand that it be
changed to "war between the states".
"Ah jest can't abahd bah tha wuhd 'civil'." was his line.
From an Indiana perspective, it was a civil war in every sense. Indiana was a
hotbed of copperhead activity, even if it did produce Colonel (later General)
Lew Wallace.
The Ulair
Earth Role-playing Game that the fairly neutral terms of "Civil War" or even
"War Between the States" had been passed over for the highly perjorative
"War of Northern Agression."
Sounds someone at ICE either has a bone to pick or likes being a covert
agent provacateur...
Disapointing that it should get in somehow. It's otherwise a decent
book.
-Jim V
Charlie Luce
>The War of Northern Aggression is what we of the South use when we want to
>see the Yankees' knees jerk. Works durn near every time, too! ;>)
I've heard it called The War of the Southern Succession and the War Against
Slavery, as well as a number or less polite tiltes (on both "sides").
Bertil Jonell
Adult? As dragons count it he's still pre-pubescent (see issue #1, btw)
Bertil Jonell
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>From an Indiana perspective, it was a civil war in every sense. Indiana was a
>hotbed of copperhead activity, even if it did produce Colonel (later General)
>Lew Wallace.
What's a copperhead. Other than a reptile or a guided projectile that
is? :)
TLTuohy
TLTuohy
amaze me what sort of response the Civil War elicits from people, given
that there's nobody left alive who remembers it.
FWIW, my family fought on both sides.
Jo Walton
jvin...@eagle.wesleyan.edu "The Ulair" writes:
What possible relevance can the American Civil War have to Middle Earth? I
can't see it at all - which side would the hobbits be on?
--
Jo
*************************************************************
- - I kissed a kif at Kefk - -
*************************************************************
Help me colonise an alien planet at Intersection Glasgow '95
*************************************************************
Bruce Baugh
tlt...@aol.com (TLTuohy) wrote:
:I've also heard it called 'finished 130 years ago'. It never fails to
:amaze me what sort of response the Civil War elicits from people, given
:that there's nobody left alive who remembers it.
Passions have a half-life in the generations, at least, when the circumstances
are right. And the outcome of the US Civil War has active ongoing implications
for _every_ aspect of American governance. So it'll remain an issue as long as
American governance has the slightest resemblance to the current system. (And
probably longer; that's a minimum.)
It's hardly alone in that, of course. Jacobins and Jacobites still matter in
some circumstances. Ditto for the Stalin/Trotsky split, which will resonate as
long as there are Marxist-Leninists. And so forth and so on.
Sue and Sean
>The War of Northern Aggression is what we of the South use when we want to
>see the Yankees' knees jerk. Works durn near every time, too! ;>)
I take it that you use this term to refer to the Suppression of the
Slaveholders' Revolt?
--
Susan and Sean (order optional) All dogma is wrong.
S & S Enterprises Death to all fanatics!
sa...@netcom.com
James Holloway
>Thus spake tlt...@aol.com (TLTuohy):
>>The War of Northern Aggression is what we of the South use when we want to
>>see the Yankees' knees jerk. Works durn near every time, too! ;>)
>
>I take it that you use this term to refer to the Suppression of the
>Slaveholders' Revolt?
-James Holloway
TLTuohy
just love it when a plan comes together?
The Ulair
> The War of Northern Aggression is what we of the South use when we want to
> see the Yankees' knees jerk. Works durn near every time, too! ;>)
Yup! :-)
I'm just wondering what it's doing on p.87 of MERP. Seems a needlessly
inflammatory editorial decision in an otherwise neatly profession publication.
-Jim
Frank Pitt
>
>In article <3vlr01$c...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>>From an Indiana perspective, it was a civil war in every sense. Indiana was a>
>>hotbed of copperhead activity, even if it did produce Colonel (later General)
>>Lew Wallace.
>
> What's a copperhead. Other than a reptile or a guided projectile that
>is? :)
The reptile is the relevant reference, as in "Don't Tread on Me "
Frankie
TLTuohy
a monster. The point to the "War of the Northern Aggression" is this:
IT'S A JOKE!
As I said right at the beginning, it's a sort of inside joke sometimes
tossed out by the odd Southerner (or in this case, Southern company)
because the reaction of anyone North of the Chesapeake Bay is so
completely, utterly, drearily predictable. And every single post in answer
to mine has served to prove that out. Inflammatory? Only if you've a
tendency to become inflamed.
The Ulair
> What possible relevance can the American Civil War have to Middle Earth? I
> can't see it at all - which side would the hobbits be on?
On p.87, where this appears in a footnote, general outlook factors for
characters are discussed. One involves deciding on the character's outlook
towards governements. There is the Governement.....Neutral....Rebel/Opposing
Government, where the footnote describes assorted wars arising out of this
last: Hundred Year's War & the US Civil War among them
-Jim
Keith Vaglienti
James Holloway <mor...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
>sa...@netcom.com (Sue and Sean) wrote:
>>Thus spake tlt...@aol.com (TLTuohy):
>>>see the Yankees' knees jerk. Works durn near every time, too! ;>)
>>
>>Slaveholders' Revolt?
> Yes, another common name for the Crusade Against Slavery.
If slavery was what the Civil War was about, why were the Cherokee and
other Indian tribes fighting for the South? Stand Watie, a Cherokee, was
the only non-white general on either side and he fought for the South.
In fact, he was the last CSA general to stop fighting, as is noted on the
new Civil War stamp series. Do you honestly expect us to believe that
what inspired him to fight was a desire to protect the right of whites to
own slaves?
The motivations of all involved in the war were quite complex. Don't
insult us by trying to make it something as simplistic as a war over slavery.
--
Keith Vaglienti
bad...@starbase.NeoSoft.com
George W. Harris
>sa...@netcom.com (Sue and Sean) wrote:
>>Thus spake tlt...@aol.com (TLTuohy):
>>>The War of Northern Aggression is what we of the South use when we want to
>>>see the Yankees' knees jerk. Works durn near every time, too! ;>)
>>
>>I take it that you use this term to refer to the Suppression of the
>>Slaveholders' Revolt?
> Yes, another common name for the Crusade Against Slavery.
> -James Holloway
Common and fallacious. Not all states in which slavery was legal
seceded. Prior to the Civil War, there was not overwhelming popular
support for abolition in the north, and the Emancipation Proclamation
was fairly controversial. The attitude of a lot of Yankees at the
time was that they were fighting to preserve the Union, not to free
the slaves, and that attitude was in agreement with the facts.
>> Susan and Sean (order optional) All dogma is wrong.
James Holloway
>
>If slavery was what the Civil War was about, why were the Cherokee and
>other Indian tribes fighting for the South? Stand Watie, a Cherokee, was
>the only non-white general on either side and he fought for the South.
>In fact, he was the last CSA general to stop fighting, as is noted on the
>new Civil War stamp series. Do you honestly expect us to believe that
>what inspired him to fight was a desire to protect the right of whites to
>own slaves?
>
>The motivations of all involved in the war were quite complex. Don't
>insult us by trying to make it something as simplistic as a war over slavery.
>
>
It's back onto the decaf for you, mi amigo. In case you didn't notice,
the whole point of this thread was illogical names for the Civil War
that cause people to come out with blind, knee-jerk reactions (for an
example, see your above response ;)) And if you try to tell me that the
cause of the Civil War was not slavery, I shall hit you over the head
with a Dred Scott Decision. The Civil War was not about the North
trying to abolish slavery (although many Northern commanders such as
J.L. Chamberlain were fervent abolitionists), but the direct cause of
the war was slavery.
The old Southern line of hooey is that the war was fought over "states' rights." There is a certain amount of Constitutional argument in favor
of secession, but to use this argument is to say that the South just one
day up and seceded 'coz they felt like it. Not quite.
The South seceded because they felt that a Republican government would
be sure to restrict slavery even more than it was already restricted.
This was not the *only* reason, but it was the greatest. I can't tell
you why Stand Watie fought, but I can tell you why the government
decided to pack it in. And if you don't believe me check out the
Declarations of Causes of Secession of GA, TX, and SC. Back in those
days, the Southerners weren't afrais to admit they were bigots.
Now, let's end this little debate before the natives get hacked and
exile it over to alt.civil-war.rehash
-James Holloway
>--
>
>Keith Vaglienti
>bad...@starbase.NeoSoft.com
Karen J. Cravens
bad...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Keith Vaglienti) wrote:
>new Civil War stamp series. Do you honestly expect us to believe that
>what inspired him to fight was a desire to protect the right of whites to
>own slaves?
>
>The motivations of all involved in the war were quite complex. Don't
>insult us by trying to make it something as simplistic as a war over slavery.
The Cherokee owned slaves, both black and Indian. This may not have
been why they were fighting on the side of the South, but you might want
to factor it into your comments.
(OOTC: I learned this while doing research for the 1871 worldbook in
the late Rogue's Gallery.)
Silver
--........................................................................
There is no key to the universe. Fortunately, it has been left unlocked.
Keith Vaglienti
James Holloway <mor...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
>It's back onto the decaf for you, mi amigo. In case you didn't notice,
>the whole point of this thread was illogical names for the Civil War
>that cause people to come out with blind, knee-jerk reactions (for an
>example, see your above response ;))
Actually, I hadn't noticed. I just resubscribed to this group after a
long absence and saw a thread about Uniforms at Cons and the Civil War in
gaming. As it happens I'm involved in Cowboy Action Shooting so I
thought I might find something of interest with regards to costuming.
Instead I saw a couple of messages perpetuating a common misconception.
Which brings me to my knee jerk reaction. Its the same knee jerk
reaction I had to Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, First Knight, Bram
Stoker's Dracula, and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which probably isn't
the same knee jerk reaction people were expecting to evoke.
>And if you try to tell me that the
>cause of the Civil War was not slavery, I shall hit you over the head
>with a Dred Scott Decision. The Civil War was not about the North
>trying to abolish slavery (although many Northern commanders such as
>J.L. Chamberlain were fervent abolitionists), but the direct cause of
>the war was slavery.
Wrong, slavery was the excuse for the war but it wasn't the cause. If
you'll study American history in the decades leading up to the war you
will find an increasing division between an industrial North and an
agricultural South. The move to abolish slavery, while dressed up as
being the only moral thing to do, was really about breaking the economic
power of the South. The Southerners recognized this and reacted about as
one would expect. This is why you saw a lot of Southerners putting their
lives on the line when they, themselves, were too poor to own slaves and
probably would never own slaves. They had nothing to gain, directly,
from protecting the rights of slaveowners yet they fought and they died.
Why? Because they knew that the North was trying to break them and they
weren't going to go down peacefully.
> The old Southern line of hooey is that the war was fought over
>"states' rights." There is a certain amount of Constitutional argument
>in favor
>of secession, but to use this argument is to say that the South just one
>day up and seceded 'coz they felt like it. Not quite.
> The South seceded because they felt that a Republican government would
>be sure to restrict slavery even more than it was already restricted.
>This was not the *only* reason, but it was the greatest.
There is an old saying that he who wins the war gets to write the
history. A good example of this principle in action is the records of
the Battle of Hampton Roads. A lot of Northen historians record that a
Union ship ran aground fleeing the Confederate ironclad Virginia. They
then record that the Virginia's captain ordered fire be set to the Union
ship, killing many helpless Union sailors. These accounts make it sound
as if nothing happened in between these two events. Dig a little deeper,
however, and you find out that some things have been left out. It seems
that the captain of the Virginia, like a lot of sailors, had an aversion
to drowning and couldn't stand to see any man die in that manner. When
the Union ship ran aground, he ordered his crew to launch lifeboats in
order to save Union sailors in the water. Union shore batteries, finding
their fire completely ineffectual against the Virginia, immediately
opened fire on the life boats, killing a CSA sailor. It was only when
one of his men was killed by Union soldiers while he was trying to save
Union sailors that the Virginia's captain ordered shot heated in the
Virginia's furnace until red hot and then fired at the Union ship in
order to fire it.
Why do you think the Northern historians left that little sequence out?
Could it be because they didn't want to admit that for even one brief
instant the Confederates were the heroes and the Union were the villains?
>I can't tell
>you why Stand Watie fought,
Thats okay, I can tell you why he fought. As Karen Cravens has already
pointed out, the Cherokee, like many indian tribes, practiced slavery but
this actually had nothing to do with it. As the tribes were politically
seperate entities they weren't affected by anti-slavery laws passed by
the United States.
The Cherokee, and other tribes, fought because they had a fervent hatred
of a federal government that made treaties with them and then broke those
treaties when it was convenient for them. The Cherokee, for example, had
had a treaty with the U.S. under which they would own their lands for as
long as the grass was green, the waters ran, and the sun shone. Then
gold was found in the area. The Cherokee were dragged from their homes
at gun point and force marched from Georgia to Oklahoma in the dead of
winter with inadequate food and supplies. One in four Cherokee died on
the Trail of Tears. When the Cherokees saw the CSA fighting against the
federal government that had done this to them it was only natural that
they should choose to side with the Confederates. This held true for
many of the tribes that had had contact with the white man.
I've been researching this stuff for an old west MUSH and I was
interested to note that the only mention I can find of indians and the
North tend to be requests from tribes that President Lincoln send troops
to remove the whites from their lands in accordance with treaties that
were supposedly in force at the time. Interesting I can't find any
mention of indians fighting for the North.
>but I can tell you why the government
>decided to pack it in. And if you don't believe me check out the
>Declarations of Causes of Secession of GA, TX, and SC. Back in those
>days, the Southerners weren't afrais to admit they were bigots.
And if you'd gone to the trouble of doing a little digging you'd have
found that a lot of Northerners were just as bigoted as Southerners. Do
you know why slavery wasn't as common in the North as it was in the
South? Because blacks weren't considered capable of performing the sort
of skilled labor the North's industrial economy required.
> Now, let's end this little debate before the natives get hacked and
>exile it over to alt.civil-war.rehash
I agree, this is my last posting on the subject.
--
Keith Vaglienti
bad...@starbase.NeoSoft.com
Cybskunk
> amaze me what sort of response the Civil War elicits from people, given
> that there's nobody left alive who remembers it.
Civil Wars have a way of doing that; the "brother-against-brother"
slaughter and the feeling of betrayal echo down the generations. Compared
to other civil wars that recur every generation or two (Rwanda or the
Balkans), we've come out pretty well.