Geographic Nationalism
[02/18/2003] [Sir Angrist]In a recent post regarding the troubles with Alamogordo and the two lands that have been formed there, Sir Roger of Neverwinter mentioned the idea of creating kingdoms based on geography, like the SCA. Apparently this idea would help with future problems involving small towns and cities having 2 groups. I’m not entirely sure that would help, since splintering seems to be an active pass time in the Amtgard political arena. Don’t like the monarch the majority elected and don’t want to wait an agonizing 6 months? Start your own land! This isn’t to belittle the troubles in Alamogordo, far from it. Having been through there once or twice myself and seeing not only the size of the town, but the area of park where one of the lands played, I feel safe in saying that it SHOULD be a one-group town. In fact, only major metropolitan areas like Denver, The DC Metro Area, New York Boston and other big cities should have more than one group based on sheer size alone. However, this being said, I fully support the idea of regional-based kingdoms. It makes more sense in the long run to have a group of 3 states make up a kingdom, sponsoring only groups in those 3 states. It would be easier to promote better relations with the kingdom if it were easier for the monarch to come by for a visit on occasion. My shire’s sponsoring land, the Burning Lands, is a good distance away. While I have no problem with this (and I’m not going to criticize here since this is just an example), we realize it’s an impossible task for us to go visit on a whim or for them to simply “drop by” for a regular game day. Say the Iron Mountains had a shire in South Carolina that needed the attention of the Emperor and might require a visit. It’s a long way from Colorado to South Carolina. However, if the Carolinas and Virginia were grouped as a kingdom of their own it would be easier for a king to deal with matters, since they would be closer and could focus on the group. The currently existing kingdoms would, of course, be grandfathered, especially Texas. There are 5 kingdoms there and the state is so large, and the kingdom cultures so ingrained, that it would be impossible to change them on a whim. Dragonspine could be expanded to include Arizona and Utah and Iron Mountains could gain Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. Goldenvale would pick up Vermont and Maine and Neverwinter Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia. Mystic Seas and VSR would have to find a way to work together and fix their differences of course, and add California and Nevada to their kingdom. The pattern would be for a least 3 states and no more than 4 to create a new kingdom. The major difficulty would be, of course, getting some of the farther-reaching groups that don’t interact to work together and create a kingdom. It will also be difficult to convince some single-seat kingdoms to give up that practice and open elections to all lands under it. The sole exception to this will be the Burning Lands, probably. As a single-city kingdom with few if any lasting shires in the area, it would be pointless to have them as a floating crown. By allowing this, there would be more of a base of leadership to be drawn from to hold the crown offices, instead of the same people doing it time and again. Lastly, this would make the concept of an Inter-kingdom government more pleasing to many, since it would include all lands and all people. This is the major hurdle any IKgov has to clear before it can truly get underway. This is an idea that should be explored in depth. It will take pressure off of the kingdoms and end the practice of kingdoms sponsoring lands with people they never meet. This will then allow the kingdom to focus on local matters, without having to come to the aid of a group half-way across the country. It may be that the time has come for this concept to become the way we handle kingdoms being made. Then we might truly have the government that we wish to have.
[ discuss on forums ] | 
