Has an official fate been given to Las Vegas? I had an idea for a writeup, inspired by this...
https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=222885&highlight=Pillars&page=87
Post 1730
Yes, Post 138.
Has an official fate been given to Las Vegas? I had an idea for a writeup, inspired by this...
https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=222885&highlight=Pillars&page=87
Post 1730
Has an official fate been given to Las Vegas? I had an idea for a writeup, inspired by this...
https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=222885&highlight=Pillars&page=87
Post 1730
Spooky and appropriate, I like it! I would think the old Strip would still be a destination for elites though, with games of chance taught there and spread out wards.
I assumed that the Québécois nobility had preserved Parisian
French because nationalism.
I assumed that the Québécois nobility had preserved Parisian
French because nationalism.
ny thoughts on my Las Vegas entry? A mini hydraulic empire based around Lake Mead, Hoover dam, the Colorado, old world steel, trade routes and slaves?
But on religion; I do like this idea- perhaps the chief Goddess is derived from Mother Mary, perhaps known as ‘Lady Luck’. Probably quite fatalistic, after the hardships and being pushed into the abandoned city. Quite hedonistic, but perhaps Lady Luck is said to turn the odds in your favor if you if you serve the House House well.
Perhaps the House House’s motto could be ‘The House Always Wins’, as any time they are conquered the House can flee to Fort Hoover, and they can make agriculture impossible by draining Lake Mead and flooding the banks of the Colorado until the attackers leave. This has led to an uneasy peace with Deseret, which has never been able to take and hold the city.
Population and Race said:http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/medvam/race.htm
Only in the South, where the races were in closer equilibrium, did the old racial divisions survive the early centuries. In terms of socioeconomic status, this put blacks on the bottom, and whites, well, also on the bottom. I mean, we're talking about the Middle Ages here, and just about everyone was on the bottom; however, because the law forbade blacks from owning land or working at any important profession, the handful of people at the top were definitely and exclusively white.
The blending of the Southern races occured below the historical horizon, among the poorly recorded underclasses and without the legal sanction of marriage, but by the 25th Century, the process seems to have turned the corner. It's about this time that Northern travellers begin to note the darkness of white Southerners, and Caribbean travellers begin to to note the lightness of black Americans. The differences had become so subtle that only those born and raised in the community could spot them.
The legal watershed came in the early 26th Century, when Jimmy Duval rose to the office of Colonel of the Red River Territory. Throughout Medieval history, bastard sons and usurping soldiers of common birth had often disrupted dynastic succession, but Duval (illegitimate son of the former Colonel) was the first to openly acknowledge his African ancestry. Thirty years later, Ted Flannagan, a mixed-race captain of mercenaries, led a coup which placed him in the Presidency of Georgia. By the end of the century, the nations of the south had redefined their racial divisions. Rather than continuing to classify anyone with black blood as black, they reclassified anyone with white blood as white. As this, by now, included just about everyone, the days of slaughtering people simply for the color of their skin were over, and blacks and whites joined in harmonious brotherhood to slaughter people for the language they spoke or the god they worshipped instead.
I think you're right. I don't think the picture White paints of dominant whites enforcing a policy that results in all but eliminating racial diversity is particularly realistic. Even given the relative demographic dominance of whites in the north, there's probably a noticeable amount of racially mixed families and a few areas where the minorities were the dominant population of a town and never really changed.Discussion of Race.
I think you're right. I don't think the picture White paints of dominant whites enforcing a policy that results in all but eliminating racial diversity is particularly realistic. Even given the relative demographic dominance of whites in the north, there's probably a noticeable amount of racially mixed families and a few areas where the minorities were the dominant population of a town and never really changed.
To give an example, I think that a noticeable amount of Hmong/Asian descent will be evident in parts of central Wisconsin and around the old Twin Cities, where there are a lot of rural Hmong farmers, as well as many "black towns"(that is, black, asian, white, mixed-race, hispanic, etc. more noticeably diverse than the surrounding countryside basically) in and around old cities. I doubt they'd be the dominant population, but that's more because the largest portion of the populations up here are urban and unfortunately likely to suffer in whatever caused the Fall more than rural and suburban whites. Still, I think they would definitely exist even if not as commonly.
Thoughts from anyone else?