(urth) BSG Spoiler
jwilson at io.com
Mon Mar 23 01:05:12 PDT 2009
James Wynn wrote:
> But if any colonists settled in Hawaii, as far as I could tell from
> the map, that was not the sort of places they focused on as a rule.
> They settled in _populated_ places like Africa, the eastern Asia, and
> the Middle East: in other words, they settled in regions where
> evidence of early man has been found. However, to the eye of people
> with the right skills, these were seen as fertile areas. Kansas and
> Minnesota were seen as a bountifully fertile lands. Prerepublic Texas
> was invariably described that way although the undeveloped state would
> look like only a wilderness to me.
I live in Texas, and it is indeed rich land, but it is still miserably
cold her during the winter despite only snowing one or two days. I can't
imagine preferring Minnesota over here given a choice in the 19th
century, and I can't imagine preferring here over Hawaii in the same
The chief reason for the colonists to choose inhabited areas is that
habitation demonstrates the area is habitable even by people in that
primitive, language-less state.
Hm, that's a question - how does Baltaar have a background in
palaeoanthropology, when the Colonies had no prehistory?
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >
More information about the Urth