New Reality Seeds

[Astromancer]

On Contact-! most of the larger Asian and African societies are more coherent/stable than on Homeline. They are still politically subjugated to the European powers though. There doesn't seem to be an anticolonial movement on this parallel, its assumed that the simple fact that the colonized societies aren't as disrupted in this world as in most parallels has prevented the formation of such movements.

This means Contact-! has a great deal of interesting cultures in full bloom ready to be explored and fairly easily accessed.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by scc

Page 72 of IW says no aliens, or at least advises against them. Best option really is to have them come from inside the Solar System

I've chosen to ignore that. However, read up on Azoth-7 and its aliens. There's more than one way to have Aliens.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by scc

Page 72 of IW says no aliens, or at least advises against them. Best option really is to have them come from inside the Solar System

Originally Posted by Astromancer

I've chosen to ignore that. However, read up on Azoth-7 and its aliens. There's more than one way to have Aliens.

Extra-System travel does open a whole can of worms -- what does the homeworld of the aliens look like on homeline? what does it look like in a universe with magic? the GM has to come up with a multiplicative number of worlds that can be accessed.

There is a simple if sloppy fix: jump programs are calculated for earth, and leaving the solar system renders them invalid. That is kind of an sloppy patch though...

[Flyndaran]

STL alien colonization of what they thought was an uninhabited "garden" world doesn't create such headaches, I would think.
If pushed, you could say that in most universes their star either isn't there or is of the wrong type for life.

[Astromancer]

I saw a C-Span2 program on the book The Other Trail of Tears. Which covers Indian removal in Ohio. Given that there weren't the same pressures to force Indian removal in Ohio, in fact most of the drive for Indian removal came from the Indians! Events could have gone very differently. John Quincy Addams secretary of War pushed for a highly individualized solution to the problem based on asking individuals and tribal bands what they wanted. Once Sharp Knife (Andrew Jackson) got in, those ideas got kicked to the side.

Points to the Shawnee, they set their terns to Sharp Knife and made him accept them.

[Flyndaran]

Has anyone done a reality where A. Jackson died from one of the many duels that ass-hat started? It has been joked that he rattled when he walked.

That would have to lead to much stronger Native American nations and weaker federal government. Right?

[robkelk]

There were plenty of others would would happily have sent the natives on their trails of tears. Specifics might change, of course.

I've occasionally wondered whether having Sir Isaac Brock survive the Battle of Queenston Heights and then Tecumseh survive the Battle of the Thames would have made a difference for the Native Americans. Brock saw Tecumseh as an actual ally, not a convenient source of front-line troops - if both had survived the war, would the Treaty of Ghent have included the terms to return lands in Ohio, Indiana and Michigan to the natives?

[Gedrin]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Has anyone done a reality where A. Jackson died from one of the many duels that ass-hat started? It has been joked that he rattled when he walked.

That would have to lead to much stronger Native American nations and weaker federal government. Right?

You might wind up with an earlier US Civil War fought over nullification instead of slavery. Jackson may have been a jerk, but his decisive action, and reputation for violence, ended nullification challenges to the power of the Federal.

You probably also delay the introduction of raw populism into US politics. After Jackson, every candidate for the next 30 years is trying to gather a similar mystique.

It would be difficult to underestimate his impact.

[Gedrin]

Originally Posted by robkelk

There were plenty of others would would happily have sent the natives on their trails of tears. Specifics might change, of course.

I've occasionally wondered whether having Sir Isaac Brock survive the Battle of Queenston Heights and then Tecumseh survive the Battle of the Thames would have made a difference for the Native Americans. Brock saw Tecumseh as an actual ally, not a convenient source of front-line troops - if both had survived the war, would the Treaty of Ghent have included the terms to return lands in Ohio, Indiana and Michigan to the natives?

I honestly don't see how things turn out well for native American culture. Imagine a culture with 1000 years of technological advantage appeared next door and they're not some sort of "future saints". About the same thing happens.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Has anyone done a reality where A. Jackson died from one of the many duels that ass-hat started? It has been joked that he rattled when he walked.

That would have to lead to much stronger Native American nations and weaker federal government. Right?

If you kill him after the Battle of New Orleans, Jackson's early death is probably going to delay the Civil War(his land payment policies favored the Planter Elites) and might even prevent a major war of ending slavery.

Kill Andrew Jackson before the Battle of New Orleans and the Brits are going to keep that port. They never recognized Napoleon's recite of the Louisiana territory from Spain nor Napoleon's sale of the same to the USA. The King of Spain certainly wanted his allies in Britain to give him his land back. So with Spain and Britain working to close the Mississippi to the USA, especially after the Eire Canal is opened and Britain sees itself losing the Great Lakes, the USA is very likely to be broken up or crippled. Britain would seek to regain the substance, if not the actual title of colonial overlord.

Killing Jackson during the John Quincy Adams administration would likely improve the lot of Native Americans. But remember, Jackson was only a grabby bully, he could be respectful of Indians too. It was just overwhelmingly politically profitable for Jackson to be a bully.