There was some confusion due to the fact that I was lax in variously using "Unincorporated Territory" and "Unincorporated Territories" as the name of the northernmost parts of the NAL. Obviously one needed to be chosen, so I went with the latter as it reflects the diversity of the region which can hardly be called a unitary province, its own Council of Nations and Companies notwithstanding. It will remain for me to update those Wiki articles that mention the UT and also the paragraphs over on the webpage.
The materials in the main article previously under the Proposal banner are all pretty much in line with what had already been worked out for the UT, so I've removed the Proposal tag. I've also incorporated all the Source material into the main body of the article. I will have to restore the UT map to the Atlas, however.
- Oh, right. I knew that, actually, I just forgot. I'll fix it Nik 19:08, 1 January 2006 (PST)
<//s>The "government" section contains some errors: the UT are ultimately governed by the Extraterritorial Lands Bureau -- an office in Philadelphia. This bureau takes the place of the governor and legislature and high courts that the other provinces have. The Bureau works with the federal government when it comes to defence and foreign trade, etc. The various Companies and Native nations dó have considerable internal autonomy, however. The Bureau would find itself in considerable difficulty if it tried to locate an oil well in the middle of an ecotourism park! There is no official legislative body or executive outside of the Bureau. Any local bodies that exist would operate under Bureau regulation and such oversight as they might offer. In effect, this still pretty much gives you carte blanche to operate the UT as you see fit. But the Bureau would certainly step in if national interests were at stake!</s> Addressed in main article.</s>
<//s>Immigration (from foreign parts) is probably a federal level affair. Immigration within the provinces and territories would be dealt with at the local level. For the UT as a whole, that is the Bureau. I would suspect that the local authorities have greater lattitude in keeping outsiders out of the UT than most provinces do.</s> Addressed in the main article, favouring the UT's right to restrict immigration.
How the aitch-ee-double-hockeysticks did we acquire a "New Japan"!?
It should be noted that the UT are integral territories of the NAL, as successor authority to all the various royal charters and garters that made up the governing works of the Colonies. Certainly treaties with Native nations are not out of the question but it shouldn't be understood that these Native nations have international standing as independent countries apart from the NAL. (When you speak of treaties between the NAL and Native nations, that's how I interpret the meaning!)
Otherwise, a fascinating article! I look forward to more detail! Elemtilas 23:39, 1 January 2006 (PST)
- Where it says that the region east of Hudson Bay was split off to become two territories, that sounds like Nitassinan North of Nouvelle France was split into two separate political entities — Nunavik and Labrador — when Nunavik and Labrador covered the same exact area and were due to ambiguities in the governance of the area while it was working on becoming a Province. See Nunavik.
Steg / Boroparkpyro 10:44, 2 January 2006 (PST)
- Yeah, I read that and was completely confused. :-) Nik 21:47, 2 January 2006 (PST)
- Indeed -- Nunavik encompasses the whole territory east of Hudsons Bay and north of Nouvelle France. I've recently found that the Company's territory was composed of several areas, one of which was Labrador (along the coast). Other divisions include Rupert's River and the East Main. It could be that Nunavik's internal subdivisions follow the Company's lines. Elemtilas 09:18, 26 January 2006 (PST)
- And since the company still operates in Nunavik, this probably is the case. Elemtilas 22:03, 2 December 2006 (PST)
Title of Territory
Should it not be the Unorganised (i.e., no provinces made from it yet) as opposed to Unincorporated (not technicaly attached to, but possibly administered by ...) Territory? --Sikulu 5 January 2006, 14:14 (GMT)
- "Unincorporated" was chosen because the territory is not composed of "Incorporated" territories, which are what the provinces are.
- The territory is not "unorganised" either: it is really a patchwork of Native regions, Company lands and private fiefdoms (a couple are individually governed, most are owned/governed by ecotourism or ecoresources firms). These authorities do, in fact, form a sort of government. The NAL is only really involved in so far as defence and other federal installations are concerned. See the main Page at <http://www.geocities.com/ill_bethisad/nal_slc.htm>
- I suspect it's time to work on the wiki article. Will have to make a list of the regions that compose the UT, too... Nik, you've started with a list of regions: can you point me to a map that shows, roughly, where they are? I'd need to fit them in with the other regions. Elemtilas 09:19, 5 January 2006 (PST)
- The use of the *unorganised* territory *here* was used by the US to indicate a patch of land which had not been either organised (into a territory) or turned into a state. --Sikulu 6 January 2006, 13:56 (GMT)
- OK. The USA used "unorganised". The NAL uses "unincorporated". Six of one, half dozen of the other, really. But note that I specifically said the UT are nòt "unorganised"! Elemtilas 09:32, 6 January 2006 (PST)
<//s>I've placed a map at the Maps Page. Nik, please have a look and comment. Note that what is shown are the great "provinces". All of the smaller nations you list in the article should fit into the scheme. If there's a problem with the Salish, Blackfoot or Cree provinces, please advise. Elemtilas 21:45, 18 January 2006 (PST)
- I like the new map, Elemtilas. I think we may need to have a draft of it that looks a bit more like the North American maps that we all know and love. --Sikulu 06:45, 19 January 2006 (PST)
- P.S., isn't the Cree province technicaly in Ontario, or did I miss that meeting? --Sikulu 06:52, 19 January 2006 (PST)
- Nothing was really specified except that ON is "out there" in the far northwest. The NAL map does show a border out along the Churchill R., but that was a guess and not meant to represent a permanent border. I.e., in case something should become decided about the UT. We now know there is a Cree Nation Province up there, so the ON border will change a tad.
- As for the stylistic differences: uniformity of style is not a Bad Thing, but look at it like this -- the present map was prepared by a different firm than the other maps we all know and love. You'll come to know and love this one, too!</s>
<//s>::: RE: New Durrow. Well, there's some weird things going on up there. I suspect the Duchy is the remnant of the territories once controlled by the now defunct Dumnonian Northwest and Arctic Exploration Co. It's one of those privately owned fiefs I mentioned. If you'ld like get away from it all, or go look at musk oxen, well, the Duchy is the place for you! There's also some fine hiking trips and even winter activities if you don't mind the nippy air. There are also Inuit villages, but access is generally restricted except for good reason. They're normal people going about their daily lives, not exhibits for the curious.
- Elemtilas 09:10, 19 January 2006 (PST)
- Looks good to me. As I see it, many of these nations are effectively scattered towns.
- Cool. Then we'll go with it! At some point in time, regional maps could be prepared that show the smaller Nations of UT. Do you have a map from *here* that shows where all the places on your list are? Elemtilas 08:36, 20 January 2006 (PST)
- Not at the moment. I'll be out of town for the next week, so I won't be able to work on it until I come back Nik 20:07, 20 January 2006 (PST)</s>
Moved to its own article.
Council of Three Fires
I've been looking into the history of the Confederacy of Three Fires (and Western Lakes Confederacy), as the Council was known *here*, and have some ideas for especially Nik to consider:
Their lands seem to have stretched from Mascoutensi to northern Les Plaines and into what we currently have demarcated as western Ontario. <//s>I don't think we should redraw MC or LP borders, but I would be quite willing and happy to reduce ON by a largeish amount.</s> I think it's too big to be a likely single province (perhaps it could extend to about 50deg N?). Perhaps the northern lands of the Council of Three Fires could reside in what is *here* western ON and eastern MT? Obviously, there would have to have been some divisive issue that prevented them from joining their southern bretheren in seeking provincehood.
It seems that the Natives that made up the Confederacy *here* were pretty staunch British allies. I would propose that the alliances made with the Confederacy by Britain against the French were a pretty major factor in ridding those lands of French influence and control. Elemtilas 13:10, 20 January 2006 (PST)
<//s>I've updated the North American and UT maps to reflect new understanding. Any comments? Elemtilas 14:09, 20 January 2006 (PST)
- Try making Ontario look more like it is on this map, or maybe slightly inflate it: British Colonies 1763-76 --Sikulu 06:11, 23 January 2006 (PST)
- One problem with Ontario, is that its original border was never intended to be final, on account of we had not yet discussed either it or the UT, and it was an afterthought on my part when I drew the map. In retrospect, that line shouldn't have been drawn there, especially since it had been established that the HBC still had control over rather a lot of territory. For that matter, the name was never even properly discussed or settled. We called it "Province of Canada" for a long while -- sometimes it was small, sometimes larger. Eventually, it was decided that Canada would be inappropriate and Ontario got adopted as an afterthought.
- The border on the map Sikulu shows is the line between HBC lands and the province of Upper Canada. Given that the Company still holds lands in IB's North America, and that we've found out what happened to the Three Fires, I feel more comfortable with a smaller Ontario. Elemtilas 20:31, 23 January 2006 (PST)
I've recently been updating things, and remembered the Hutterites. I figure that they've settled much the same areas *there* as *here*. I wonder if there might be some agitation for Southern Alberta/Saskatchewan and Northern Montana *here* to incorporate as some Hutterite Province? Pro's? Con's? Debate? BoArthur 18:23, 25 January 2006 (PST)
- It sounds interesting to me. They do sound like the kind of minority that my prooposed Ontario has been attracting. Zahir 18:36, 25 January 2006 (PST)
- I agree that they should have a place, but have to wonder if they really need an actual province? We risk balkanising the place if every single group gets a province of their own!
- That said, it's entirely possible they could have made a deal with the Blackfoot Nation to share a piece of their territory and govern it as their own within the UT. I see no reason why they couldn't settle *there* more or less where they did *here*. It looks like they'd be spread out in the Blackfoot Nation (of the UT) and probably some in far western Les Plaines. I read the linked article, but it seems they were moving mostly eastward. How do they get from the Ukraine to the NAL? What towns are they concentrated in and around in those territories *here*? Perhaps some could have settled in Ontario while a number went on into the West? Elemtilas 19:07, 25 January 2006 (PST)
- I'll be adding their movements shortly. *Here* they ended up in the Dakota Territory, then, after persecution settled all of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and have gradually re-settled the US in Montana, Dakotas, Minnesota and one or two in Washington and Oregon. The more I think about their religion, they wouldn't really care for their own place, they would only care to be left alone, and to be able to expand their settlements and lead their own lives. I think them just being a minority within the UT would be the best idea.
- The Hutterites *here* have communes of 60 to 150 people, and then, once they reach a certain stage, the fathers of families draw lots and move to a newly established commune, where the process is eventually repeated. There's a lot of comings and goings socially between the communes, so they're not inbred like the Amish *here*. BoArthur 19:23, 25 January 2006 (PST)
- Well, the UT is the place to be, if what they want is to be left alone (think of it as "official but benign neglect"). Interesting about how they decide when to move on. I guess that còuld bring them into conflict with Natives and other Locals. Up where my family is from in New York, there is some religious sect that wants to settle a commune. It has the Locals in a bit of a stir, as no one seems to know anything about them or what they're about. I suspect that similar ignorance would apply *there* as well! Elemtilas 09:07, 26 January 2006 (PST)
- Well, they're not as closed off as the Amish, they do deal with the locals, but they're more reserved, and they won't let just anyone into a colony to see all the buildings.
FlagElemtilas 22:30, 2 December 2006 (PST)
- I like it. Zahir 22:32, 2 December 2006 (PST)
What was that? — Steg, a.k.a. Boroparkpyro 08:36, 3 December 2006 (PST)
- I was wondering about that as well. Zahir 09:58, 3 December 2006 (PST)
- Someone mentioned that there was a territory *here* (I think Kentucky or Ohio or something) that was to be called "Transylvania". This was back in the late 18th century. There could have been such a thing *there* as well, though probably evaporated like *here*. Elemtilas 12:21, 3 December 2006 (PST)
- Yeah, that was me (roughly Kentucky). It was just an idea about an area that was added to the NAL after the breakup of New France. --Sikulu 00:54, 4 December 2006 (PST)
- P.S. I assume that the Northwest Territory is the equivalent of this (did it include Les Plaines *there*?). So, is the Southwest Territory supposed to be the same as this (i.e. Tennessee)? And what about the Yazoo Lands (i.e. *there's* CN prior to 1806)? --Sikulu 01:26, 4 December 2006 (PST)
- P.P.S. What about the land mentioned here, which the CN ceeded to English West Florida following the Castillian annexation of *here's* Florida in 1806? --Sikulu 01:37, 4 December 2006 (PST)
- On that note, a series of maps on the teritorial evolution of the NAL would be nice (I think I'll make some to save the rest of you the bother, although they'll take a while), a bit like these. I'll try to get a draft done by the end of next week (I'm rather busy this week). Perhaps some for Louisiana would be good too. --Sikulu 02:00, 4 December 2006 (PST)
Minor etymological point: Canada was originally the name for Quebec city, then the Quebec region, then the double-barreled colony of Upper and Lower Canada, then the entire enormous Dominion. And we know what happened to Quebec *there*. If we want to retcon, cañada is Castilian for "glen". More interestingly, Kanada was a Gujarati philosopher who proposed the existence of atoms some centuries before Christ. If Kanada is better known *there*, his name may be associated with atoms or the concept of indivisibility - not a bad namesake for a movement to keep the Territories united. Benkarnell 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- It was actually rather a joke. Sort of the way there's no Polish *there*, but some Vened conlanger came up with it anyway. Choose whatever etymology you like! I have no problem with Kanada -> Canada, as the story is at least plausible; but Canyada seems a bit less likely to me with no Castilian influence. Elemtilas 03:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, after only three years I've finally got the map sorted out. The UT was a little bigger, in the southeast, years ago when I first drew it up, but as Ontario grew northwards, I neglected to take it into account. I've also found several new quasi-provincial territories and Native lands in the mean time and so decided to re-caption and redraw the border with ON. This map doesn't show áll the member territories, as many of them are quite small indeed, but it's got most of the big ones. Elemtilas 04:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- (Five years later, but to me the map is still "new") - All these Kingdoms... is the King the same person as HM Pedr or HM Diana, or are there local Kings living up there? Benkarnell 18:13, 12 November 2014 (PST)