[suggestion] Colonial Cultures

[KPJ]

Interesting point, Don Quigleone, about the Mestizo. But then you'd have to ask why not Metis, or other mixed cultures such as are a significant minority in Dutch Asia during this period.

Guillaume HJ:

I would disagree with that idea that it developed after the revolution. I think the development was well underway beforehand (thanks to living across an ocean from each other), though identification remained (eg, the two were developing in distinct cultures, but Americans still thought of themselves as Englishmen, and looked toward London as a source of culture), but once the shoe dropped, those who revolted and embraced the notion of a new country couldn't be fairly seen as part of English culture anymore.

Well, I'm not sure by what the rest of what you've written here you really do disagree with the idea. Of course the British in America had regional variations (the underway development of a seperate culture) when compared with the British in Britain, but so did the British in India, Cornwall, Jamaica, or wherever else.

To complicate the matter even further, in english, there are no actual anglophone Québécois - they are anglophone Quebecers. Québécois, when it is used, means francophone Quebecers . However, in French, a Québécois is simply an inhabitant of Quebec, so in French there are anglophone Quebecois but not in English. Much like in English a Canadien (not Canadian) is a francophone, but in Quebec French a Canadien is most often an anglophone.

If you really want to complicate matters further, you should probably realize that what you've learned and what I've learned are probably equally correct; these aren't objective terms. A Francophone PQ organizer who was my professor's teacher-assistant was adamant that an independent Quebec state would be bilingual and would protect non-French-Canadian citizens equally to everyone else. And a major point of his was that Quebecois is a geographical nation, that the identity was unrelated to language or culture (while a nation is defined as a group of people sharing an identity based on geography, history, language, religion, etc., most PQ folks I met asserted that Quebecois was not based on language because of it's inclusion of so many non-French groups (Anglophones, Allophones, Aborigines)).

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Make it a two step process. First cultures become a colonial culture within the same culture group of the parent, then they turn into a separate colonial culture group later on. How this happens, and how quickly is dependent on several factors.

 

[Wallain]

Make it a two step process. First cultures become a colonial culture within the same culture group of the parent, then they turn into a separate colonial culture group later on. How this happens, and how quickly is dependent on several factors.

Why separate culture group?

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Why separate culture group?

So that French Canadian and English Canadian can be in the same culture group.

 

[Wallain]

So that French Canadian and English Canadian can be in the same culture group.

Why should they?

 

[Evie HJ]

Oh, I'm fairly certain an independant Quebec would have strong anglophone minority rights, and that they would be considered Quebecers (which is Québécois in French), ie, inhabitants and citizens of Quebec. But Québécois...it's pretty much the first time I see Québécois, used in english the same way as it is used in French. Might just be I've never seen it used that way before. But it, like Canadien, are words that I've seen used in English to designate specifically the francophone segment of both populations. Or possibly the people you met were using Québécois in the french sense (ie, equivalent to Quebecer), rather than in the English sense. Or maybe not.

As for British and revolution, what I'm saying is that there are two components, essentially, to developing your own culture. One is material: what is your culture compared to the motherland's culture? What are the similarities? What are the differences? For colonial cultures, living in completely different atmospheres, material culture often become very quickly different from that of the motherland.

But there is another component to culture. And that is identity. Even if a culture is materially very different, if the people who live in it identify with another culture, consider themselves part of another culture, then even if there's a wide difference, the two remain linked: in EU term, they would be at least same culture group and perhaps even same culture.

So what of the American revolution?

I'd say that prior to the revolution, the Americans had a significantly different culture, materially, from britain, influenced by frontier life, native contacts, etc. However, as they identified as English, and still had several similarities with England, one cannot deny that there was still a powerful link. So, before the revolution, I would classify the Americans in the British culture group. Perhaps even out and out English culture in large parts of the country.

On the other hand, over the course of the events leading to the revolution, and the revolution itself, that identification was lost. Americans ceased identifying as English, and began identifying as Americans. Moreover, the most English-identifying parts of the country went north to Canada so they could stay English. At which point you have two materially different cultures (though with ties), that do not identify as the same. They still share points in common, and you could argue for same culture group, but definitely not same culture.

However, for same culture group, you have another factor to consider: GBR is a union tag. Which means, in game terms, that they face absolutely no difficulties in trying to make any culture in their culture group part of their empire. Which, after the revolution, would be a very, very, very, very bad mechanism. These are people who just fought and died to get out of GBR, they're not going to look at it as the motherland whose rule they welcome because they're same-culture people.

So I would argue that they should be separate culture group after the revolution for gameplay reasons.

 

[maxirage]

So that French Canadian and English Canadian can be in the same culture group.

Why should they be in the same culture group? Just because they live in the same country? Today, the French province of Canada gets tons of special rights and federal benefits just to quench ideas of separatism, which has been an issue ever since the country was united.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_sovereignty_movement

Anyway, Americans being in the British culture group works fine. Scottish is part of the group, even though there are enough difference to warrant a serious discussion of them seceding from the UK. Despite pretending to not be so, modern Americans are still very similar to the British.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

The point was so that it was possible for the colonial cultures to end up in the same culture group as each other in special circumstances. Say in the event of a separation of several cultures which then mix together. These separate group cultures may never actually come up in any given game at all if the right events don't come about.

I will ask, are the Quebecois more similar to Canadian culture, or French culture?

 

[Wallain]

The point was so that it was possible for the colonial cultures to end up in the same culture group as each other in special circumstances. Say in the event of a separation of several cultures which then mix together. These separate group cultures may never actually come up in any given game at all if the right events don't come about.

Yeah, but they should be assimilated into that. There is simply not enough time for the colonial revolters to revolt and distance themselves that much from their previous overlord culturally.

I will ask, are the Quebecois more similar to Canadian culture, or French culture?

No idea.

 

[maxirage]

Quebecois consider themselves a culture separate from both English Canadians and the French. Keeping them in the French group makes more to be because the language is shared, and it keeps the proposed colonial culture mechanic simple.

 

[anomanderus]

I think Mexican, American, Brazilian, Boer etc would all be fine

But the problem with having special cultures for all nations, like a USA colonized by Germany becomes "Amerikaner" a Mexico colonized by Germany becomes "Mexikaner" and so on seems like it would create unneeded work. But I guess if they could pull it off (operating obviously on the assumption that the minor cultures of Europe like the Basques and the eastern Europeans like the Finns and East slavs and Balts and Byzantines won't be doing much colonization- and yes I know about Courland) if they used the major cultures of Europe- British, German, Italian, Scandinavian, French, Iberian and possibly Celtic and Arab due to their proximity of Morocco and Ireland to the New World they could perhaps pull it off. Though they would probably have to group all non-Mexican non-Brazilian Latin countries into one group, or several large non-descript groups like Andean and Patagonian. East Asians should probably not be in on this because of the size of the Pacific and the unlikelihood of Japan or Korea or China colonizing the west coast of the Americas.

 

[Evie HJ]

Quebecois consider themselves a culture separate from both English Canadians and the French. Keeping them in the French group makes more to be because the language is shared, and it keeps the proposed colonial culture mechanic simple.

While the language is shared, a lot of things aren't, and the late EU-era (A generation after conquest) French-Canadians would probably have a fair deal of trouble with French rulership due to the introduction of several improvement over French customs from English customs (which, contrary to what some nationalist say, were plentiful) . So an argument for putting them in a separate group (possibly a French_American group, along with the Acadians and Creoles) could be justifiable to avoid them coming under the umbrella of the French union tag.

Which is the one factor that seems to be always forgotten here. Even if same-culture-group would make sense in theory, it might not make sense once one consider the Union Tag factor. Even if, culturally, Americans or Canadiens are close enough to their motehr culture to be same-group, if that implies that they want to be part of Great Britain or France, then we have a problem by the late game.

 

[KPJ]

And what about slave cultures? What culture would we give to a successfully rebellious Haiti? African-American? Creole? Carribbean? French?

I will ask, are the Quebecois more similar to Canadian culture, or French culture?

I don't think this is really going to be an effective line of questioning. It's like asking if the English are more French or Norwegian. In some cases one, in other cases the other. Quebec is a subject (but distinct) nation, with their own languages and cultural identities that distinguish it from any other place in the world.

the introduction of several improvement over French customs from English customs (which, contrary to what some nationalist say, were plentiful)

Uhh, like the decapitation of their society?
In the late 1960s when the sovereigntist movement and the Quiet Revolution were becoming significant, French-speakers accounted for 70% of Quebec's population and controlled 10% of Quebec's wealth (that number is rough, it's been a while since I took my Canadian history classes).

So an argument for putting them in a separate group (possibly a French_American group, along with the Acadians and Creoles) could be justifiable to avoid them coming under the umbrella of the French union tag.

This, I do agree with, however. It's worth noting that the French-Canadian seperation from France is also largely based on the results of The Conquest. France opted to maintain their sugar-islands and let the British keep Canada. Furthermore, during the French revolution Quebec was considered a popular destination for former clergy. Lastly, the British planting of English-speakers in Montreal and elsewhere (particularly Scots), also had a significant effect. These types of things are much too detailed to be possible in an EU-type game beyond the simple province events such as 'Enact Settlement Policy'. I would expect we'll end up with just the European cultures in America, and maybe an exception for the US Americans because they're so exceptional

 

[Evie HJ]

Uhh, like the decapitation of their society?
In the late 1960s when the sovereigntist movement and the Quiet Revolution were becoming significant, French-speakers accounted for 70% of Quebec's population and controlled 10% of Quebec's wealth (that number is rough, it's been a while since I took my Canadian history classes).

True, and yet need qualified in two important ways.

1)A large part of that resulted from the sizeable influx in capital that came from Britain over the late 1700s and 1800s, then from the United States. So while it's true that Francophones had very little share of the pie, and very little control, that's not to say their acutal amount of pie really changed between English and French rule. Just the pie got, well, a lot larger, and most of the new shares of pie went to non-francophones.

2)A large part of the reason the Francophone didn't get pie, while some of it was political-linguistic (eg, lack of access to the governor's council, etc), was nothing to do with the English, and a lot to do with the Catholic church push toward "survival", "maintaing who we are", and, in brief, maintaing an agrarian society, suspicious toward modernity. Rome did a lot more harm to Quebec than London, in my opinion.

On the flip side, among things that came to Quebec with the invasion, we find:

-Militia service goes from mandatory and unpaid to voluntary and paid.
-Theater and other forms of art that the Catholic church had managed to keep out making their way into the colony
-The printing press. there were no Printing presses in French North America before the conquest (and thus no newspaper).
-Post office. Pre-conquest, mail had to be entrusted to travelers going in the right direction. England fixed that.
-A much cleaner, simpler, less bureaucratic administration.
-The right to speak for a group. Before, a person could only speak and present claim for themselves. No petitions, etc.
-Majority age! It was 25 for the French, and 21 for the English.
-British criminal proceedings. Before, the accused had no lawyer, didn't know the charges, and could be tortured.
-Allowed the practice of law. Which in turn allowed for the rise of a francophone elite.
-Abolished the monopoly system of fur trades. Which, decapitated some trade leaders...and opened the trade to the rest.
-Money. New France chronically lacked coins, so had to use notes, "card money", etc. England fixed that.
(The fact that France, after the conquest, only recognized those notes at a quarter of their value doesn't help their case)
-Loaning. It was banned (hello there Church) under the French regime, not under the English one.
-Agricultural improvement (the herds were of low quality, the techniques were outdated, etc).

Briefly put, yes, there were downsides to the colonization. But in a very large way, there's a "Well, aside from...what did the Romans ever do for us?" element to it, too.

 

[KPJ]

Well, there are a lot of assumptions there about how things would have turned out without the Conquest. Some of the things you mention, I expect, would have changed under local rule just as well as alien rule. In fact, being secure in their sovereignty French-Canadians would probably be less clingy to the traditions that seperate them from 'the damned English'.

It's been fun speculating with you, Guillaume, but I think we'd better leave it at that before this thread becomes all about the Conquest.

 

[maxirage]

I would expect we'll end up with just the European cultures in America, and maybe an exception for the US Americans because they're so exceptional

Uh, I hope not;, that would be the worst case scenario. This mechanic really overpowered colonization and was plain ahistorical. The only nation that did large-scale colonization while keeping their culture in the new territories is Russia, and that's quite a different scenario than the likes of the Spanish or British.

If you colonize on a different continent with no land connection to your capital, the culture should be different. It would be better for balance and more closely simulate what happened historically. The only practical question when implementing this is:

1)Are the new cultures of the colonizer's group (e.g., French)
2)Or are the new culture of the region's group (e.g., North America)

I feel any other mechanic would be too complex and not worthwhile to implement. Number two would be more accurate for gameplay, with freed colonies not desiring reunification with their colonial parents (who are usually cultural unions). But it would mean that all North Americans, such as the Quebecois and Americans, would feel more culturally united than English Canadians and the English, which is not true.

 

[Evie HJ]

KPJ - I'll leave on a note that it had been 150 years since the conquest and none of these had been changed, so I'm not sure they would have, but otherwise I agree we should call it quit on the Conquest.

Maxirage - Or have multiple North American culture groups.

EG, I can think of at least three distinct French North American culture : French-Canadian (or Canadiens; NOT Quebecois), Acadian and Cajun/Creole (different, but as they're both in the same general idea, you'd probably want to use just one). Arguably Metis, too, though that's more questionable).

Similarly, I can think of at least three distinct English cultures for just the United States - Yankee (New England), some sort of mid-atlantic culture (Pennsylvania and surroundings, perhaps Pennamite might be historical; though you could probably just call that culture "American"), and southern plantation culture (I believe Dixie would be anachronistic, but it could be called that if one must).

 

[Garek Maxwell]

It would be a lot simpler if colonial revolters had their own culture groups, which would update by culture creation events or something.

So a mish-mash of French and English in Brazil would create French-Brazilian and English-Brazilian in the Brazilian culture group. That way, the colonies become a little less useful over time and will be more likely to revolt when times are tough. Additionally, they'll be more likely to revolt into nicer borders without Brazil strictly being only the French areas or only the English areas.

Programmatically, it would just grab the colonizers culture and stick a "-Brazilian" to the end of it while adding this to the Brazilian culture group. This allows for more dynamic situations where Brazil will still show up despite Byzantium, Hungary, Russia, or even Morocco colonizing them, and they get a different culture instead of being their mother culture's forever. That's also less incentive to just straight up invade again later and take them back with little penalty.

 

[Evie HJ]

I think that's the sort of simple solution that sounds a lot simpler on paper than it is to program (while being a nightmare to mod). So I doubt we'd see that.

 

[Garek Maxwell]

I think that's the sort of simple solution that sounds a lot simpler on paper than it is to program (while being a nightmare to mod). So I doubt we'd see that.

Not if you base the culture change events on cores, make sure colonial cultures are the exception for adding the "-Brazilian" suffix, and add a flag to turn off culture conversion from colonial to non-colonial (or make overseas lands not culturally convert). Then all you have to worry about are cores and where they show up.

It's actually pretty easy to program that initial name grabbing and insertion into culture group method. That function is one I could program, and I'm not really a programmer. It's a very basic statement where you check for a few things being true and then taking variable mother culture X, adding appropriate culture group suffix Y, and adding new culture Z to the culture group you just looked for. Simple stuff. :|