We've found out Sitting Bull will be one of the new LeaderHeads for the new expansion pack. It is yet unclear if his civilization will be officially Native Americans or Sioux. Which would you prefer it to be?


Sioux
Native Americans

Definitely Native American. While I understand that would upset some people (heck, if you lump all the Native American ethnicities into one group, you might as well also have a Civ called "European"), I think it gives the game more flexibility for adequate representation. In other words, we could have more 'Native American' leaders such as Pontiac without having to create a new Civ. It's a choice of evils, to be sure, but I think they went with the one that makes the best sense for gameplay.

Sioux

Native Americans is just too imprecise. I mean the Sioux are not the Sioux because thet were native, but because they kicked Custers ass!

I'm one for detail and historical accuracy: Sioux

Native American is too broad. Sioux would be a better name. (but I'm guessing Firaxis is staying with "Native American")

Saying there is a native american civilization is like grouping all of the mesoamericans, europeans, asians, and africans into single civs. But IMO the iroquois are a better representation of a native american civilization, as they had much more complex pollitical structures which we are usually accustomed to seeing in a civilization.

It could be that it must be Native Americans because there will be 2 leaders, but if only 1 then, Sioux.

It could be that it must be Native Americans because there will be 2 leaders, but if only 1 then, Sioux.

You mean there's going to be two leaders for Native Americans?????!?!?!?

If they have Aztecs and Incas, then I see no reason not to call Sitting Bull's civ, Sioux.

That would create a discrepancy if they weren't because Aztecs and Incas were Native American. Thus why would they not be a part of this Native American Civ?

Odds are they're the Sioux.

Also, as pointed out, being native american is an Ethnicity/Culture. Just as European is. Thus it would further make no sense for it to be the "Native American" Civ, since France, England, Germany, etc. all exist yet by the above standard should be bundled into the "European" Civ. Or broken into other ethnic/cultural groups within that would be appropriate.

Either way, it would make little sense to refer to them as the Native American Civilization.

Where's the poll?

Like the English, Spanish, French and Dutch are all different, the Sioux, Iroquois and Cherokee are different too. Firaxis wouldn't dream of banding Western Europe together to form a Western European civ, so the Native American tribes should be kept apart in BTS. Sioux should definetley be the name used, not Native American.

Sioux for sure. We've already treated Aboriginals like crap in enough other ways, we should at least respect the in a game :P

IMO they should be both in the game as seperate civs with a single leader. The Iroquois and the Sioux are both noteworthy enough.

sioux. maya, inca and aztecs are also native americans ;)

"Native American" doesn't bring up the images of Aztecs, Mayans and Incas in the American mind, does it? Instead, it's Indians and cowboys, Custer and tepees, peace pipes and bonfires. Bah.

I'd prefer Sioux myself, but broad generalizations might creep its way into the development process dot dot dot.

It's been said before but it's worth saying again: If Firaxis has made 2 leaders for the American Indian's then it will be a problem calling them the Sioux.

Also, if there were 2 or more seperate tribes, then it would increase the probability of having an American Indian tribe in any normal game. That wont work properly as it'll throw the random number generator out of whack.

We usually get more than one European Civ, but nobody gives a care because of this so-called "World History" thing. :)

If they have Aztecs and Incas, then I see no reason not to call Sitting Bull's civ, Sioux.

That would create a discrepancy if they weren't because Aztecs and Incas were Native American. Thus why would they not be a part of this Native American Civ?

Odds are they're the Sioux.

Also, as pointed out, being native american is an Ethnicity/Culture. Just as European is. Thus it would further make no sense for it to be the "Native American" Civ, since France, England, Germany, etc. all exist yet by the above standard should be bundled into the "European" Civ. Or broken into other ethnic/cultural groups within that would be appropriate.

Either way, it would make little sense to refer to them as the Native American Civilization.


Technically, "Aztec" is a broad generalization of the mountainous cultures from the Rockies, down into Mexico and Central America. (BTW, It's funny how the words "Atlantis (of Greek origin) and Aztlan (of Aztec origin) seem similar in root word. Who knows, maybe a stray Phoenician seafaring people stumbled upon them via Africa and South America -- but that's a long shot). Personally, I would prefer "Souix", but I guess they wanted to include entire cultures like the Aztecs are really an entire culture.

Considering their unique building is supposed to be a Totem pole which were built by Native groups on the West coast and not by plains Indians like the Sioux, calling them the Sioux right now would be silly.

At first the idea of having a generic Native American civ really bothered me due to the fact that the Native Americans weren't even close to being a unified people, then I realized that neither were the Celts or even the Greeks for that matter.

IMHO "Dakota" is more accurate than "Sioux". If I recall my 6th grade Minnesota history class, "Sioux" was the name given to the Dakota by the Chippewa meaning "little snake" or "snake in the grass" and it wasn't considered a compliment.

At first the idea of having a generic Native American civ really bothered me due to the fact that the Native Americans weren't even close to being a unified people, then I realized that neither were the Celts or even the Greeks for that matter.

Nailed it on the head with that point. We accept a unified "Greek" civilization (heck, classical Athenians and Spartans are different ethnicities) led by a Macedonian without too much griping, I think we can let a Native American Civ slide IF it gives us multiple leaders.

IMHO "Dakota" is more accurate than "Sioux". If I recall my 6th grade Minnesota history class, "Sioux" was the name given to the Dakota by the Chippewa meaning "little snake" or "snake in the grass" and it wasn't considered a compliment.
Now that's giving this whole thing a whole new perspective. Anyone got any links to verify this interesting claim?

Now that's giving this whole thing a whole new perspective. Anyone got any links to verify this interesting claim?

This is what Wikipedia (consider the source) says on the matter:

Today it is preferable to refer to the Teton, Isanti, or Ihanktowan/Ihanktowana as either Lakota (otherwise known as the Sioux), Dakota, or Nakota respectively.[citation needed] In any of the three main dialects, "Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota" all translate to mean "friend," or more properly, "ally". Usage of either Lakota, Dakota, or Nakota may then refer to the alliance that once bound the Great Sioux Nation together. The historical Sioux referred to the Great Sioux Nation as the Oceti Sakowin, meaning "Seven Council Fires". Each fire represented a tiyospaye (family or band). The seven nations that comprise the Sioux are: Mdewakanton, Wahpetowan (Wahpeton), Wahpekute, Sissetowan (Sisseton), the Ihantowan (Yankton), Ihanktowana (Yanktonai), and the Teton (Lakota people|Lakota). The first four comprise the main branches of the Isanti (Santee or Dakota).

The name "Sioux" is an abbreviated form of Nadouessioux borrowed into French Canadian from Nadoüessioüak from the early Ottawa exonym: na·towe·ssiwak "Sioux". The Proto-Algonquian form *nātowēwa meaning "Northern Iroquoian" has reflexes in several daughter languages that refer to a small rattlesnake (massasauga, Sistrurus). This information was interpreted by some that the Ottawa borrowing was an insult. However, this proto-Algonquian term most likely is ultimately derived from a form *-ātowē meaning simply "speak foreign language", which was later extended in meaning in some Algonquian languages to refer to the massasauga. Thus, contrary to many accounts, the Ottawa word na·towe·ssiwak never equated the Sioux with snakes.

Today, many of the ethnic groups continue to officially call themselves "Sioux", which the Federal Government of the United States applied to all Yankton/Yanktonai/Santee/Lakota people in the 19th and 20th centuries.[citation needed] However, some of the tribes have formally or informally adopted traditional names: the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is also known as the Sicangu Oyate, and the Oglala often use the name Oglala Lakota Oyate, rather than the English "Oglala Sioux Tribe" or OST. (The alternative English spelling of Ogallala is not considered proper.)

I would prefer not having a Native American civ becuase its stupid but since there will be
Native Americans for sure, Sioux is just one tribe

I'll go either way... don't care. As long as he has nice traits and a cool UU.

Originally the Dakota, which means "ally," were called the Sioux. This changed when the Chippewa gave them the name Nadouesse, which means "snake in the grass." Nadouesse was how the tribe was introduced to the French. The Voyageurs made Nadouesse plural, Nadouessesioux, then shortened the name to the last syllable, Sioux. However, the tribe now calls itself Dakota.

http://www.isd77.k12.mn.us/schools/dakota/mnriver/dakota-indians.htm

Here's a Minnesota public school website that sheds a little more light on the subject...

From what I know of Sitting Bull, it would make sense that he would be Protective and Spiritual...though that combo is already taken by Saladin, so knowing he's Protective, barring a change to Saladin, the options are Creative, Imperialistic, Organized, and Philosophical. I doubt he'd be Imperialistic (Sioux/Dakota never had "cities") and they were not particularly Organized either. So most likely would be Creative of Philosophical...unless Saladin returned to Philosophical (Vanilla Civ4) and Protective.

I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure whether or not the term Sioux is perjorative or not. Dictionary.com (based on Random House) states:

[Origin: 1755–65, Americanism; < North American F, shortening of earlier Nadouessioux < Ojibwa (Ottawa dial.) na·towe·ssiw(ak) pl. (< Proto-Algonquian *na·towe·hsiw-, deriv. of *na·towe·wa Iroquoian, prob. lit., speaker of a foreign language) + F -x pl. marker]

But the Online Etymology Dictionary states:

group of N.Amer. Indian tribes, 1761, from N.Amer. Fr., aphetic for Nadowessioux, from Ojibway Natowessiwak (pl.), lit. "little snakes," from nadowe "Iroquois" (lit. "big snakes"). A name given by their neighbors; the people's name for themselves is Dakota, lit. "allies."

So ... does Iroquois mean 'big snakes' or 'speaker of a foreign language' or both? Sadly, the Wiki article does not have a citation where it claims the latter is more likely.

I guess their name will depend on whether your civilization considers them an "ally" or a "snake"...

The totem pole UB is confusing, though the Dakota/Sioux didn't really build structures that could qualify as UB other than a teepee.

Perhaps it's the American Indian empire and they'll have second leader with the Brave as the UU.

Why does it matter if Sitting Bull gets the same traits as Saladin? I know they like to use new combos, but it's really not that big of a deal. Maybe spiritual / expansive (Isabella) would work?

Did the Sioux actually make Totem Poles? I thought that was primarily Indians of the Northwest? If they didn't, this is as sure a sign as any that we've gotten a generic "Native American civ", not the Sioux.

Nailed it on the head with that point. We accept a unified "Greek" civilization (heck, classical Athenians and Spartans are different ethnicities) led by a Macedonian without too much griping, I think we can let a Native American Civ slide IF it gives us multiple leaders.

Considering that the word ethnicity comes from the Greek word Ethnos and Spartans as did Athenians declared that they Shared the same Ethnos with each other you would be wrong.


Ofcource the Civilization of the Incas ,Aztek , etc was ignorant of Sioux and both civilizations where Native Americans but they didn't share the same ethnicity.. Unless you would like to use the territory that several civilization live to define an ethnicity and not common religion , language , common history and common national conscience . I think that wouldn't be wise , it would be like calling all the Europeans under one ethnicity which is wrong if we take into acount the definition of ethnicity.

Considering that the word ethnicity comes from the Greek word Ethnos and Spartans as did Athenians declared that they Shared the same Ethnos with each other you would be wrong.



No, they would be. I could say I share the same heritage of an American Indian, but I wouldn't. Ancient Athenians and Spartans are Ionian and Dorian respectively. Obviously exposure to one another over time resulted in similar language and intermingling, but -- as to the point in this thread -- lumping them together as 'Greek' is the same as lumping together the various American Indian tribes as 'Native American'.

And I would love to know when Athenians declared they were the same Ethnos as Sparta. Source?

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but should Native Americans/Sioux/Lakota even be in the game? I was under the impressions that cities were a necessary prerequisite for a civilization? Either that or some great technological discoveries or just about possibly, a complicated and unique political structure. I don't see where the Sioux' fit in there.

THE SIOuX do not deserve to ve in the game I HATE this civ and I would hate to see the Sioux in my random games, arghhh, who cares about them anyways?! what are their cities and technology?

No, they would be. I could say I share the same heritage of an American Indian, but I wouldn't. Ancient Athenians and Spartans are Ionian and Dorian respectively. Obviously exposure to one another over time resulted in similar language and intermingling, but -- as to the point in this thread -- lumping them together as 'Greek' is the same as lumping together the various American Indian tribes as 'Native American'.

The problem with using the greeks as a counter-example is the difference between a Navajo and a Lakota or an Inuit culturally and societally are really quite a bit larger than the differences between a Spartan and an Athenian. Where we draw the line is yet to be seen, but since Firaxis has already grouped all the Celtic peoples together under one Civ, I bet the they will do likewise with North American natives.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but should Native Americans/Sioux/Lakota even be in the game? I was under the impressions that cities were a necessary prerequisite for a civilization? Either that or some great technological discoveries or just about possibly, a complicated and unique political structure. I don't see where the Sioux' fit in there.

Let me go get my copy of 1491 for the name ... ah here it is: Cahokia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia)


Some scholars believe that at the height of its development, Cahokia was larger than any city in the U.S. until about 1800, when Philadelphia surpassed Cahokia's estimated peak population.


Remember: if recent research is correct (cf 1491 by Charles C. Mann), over 95% of the Native American population was decimated by the arrival of the Europeans. The reason the European imagination is of loose bands of nomads is because that is what the native population was reduced to.

Now, if we're correct and they're being called Native Americans, the reason it's Sitting Bull is not specifically for the civilization talents of the Sioux but for the leadership talents of Sitting Bull. If they do end up calling them the Sioux, well, then I'm guessing it's still the leadership talents of Sitting Bull that is driving the choice.

The problem with using the greeks as a counter-example is the difference between a Navajo and a Lakota or an Inuit culturally and societally are really quite a bit larger than the differences between a Spartan and an Athenian. Where we draw the line is yet to be seen, but since Firaxis has already grouped all the Celtic peoples together under one Civ, I bet the they will do likewise with North American natives.


Of course. My point in using the Greeks is twofold: one, I'm educated in their history (as opposed to the Celts, Native Americans, etc.), and two, while the Spartans and Athenians are a lot closer ethnically than Navajo and Lakota, they would have been just as offended to be lumped together (and there'd be heck to pay if you lumped them in with Thebes) as those groups would be.

Well, if anyone takes a look back at Civ II, there was a Sioux civilization, not just a Native American civilization. I personally think that the Iroquois should be over the Sioux.

No, they would be. I could say I share the same heritage of an American Indian, but I wouldn't. Ancient Athenians and Spartans are Ionian and Dorian respectively. Obviously exposure to one another over time resulted in similar language and intermingling, but -- as to the point in this thread -- lumping them together as 'Greek' is the same as lumping together the various American Indian tribes as 'Native American'.

And I would love to know when Athenians declared they were the same Ethnos as Sparta. Source?

Alternative history X . Where do they teach you that staff ? Please research this as i have done multiple times before reaching those conclusions. Since i haven't recently used the Internet (for this matter) in a while and most of my sources are Greek it would be hard for me to find a source to prove history to you.


Obviously exposure to one another over time resulted in similar language and intermingling, but -- as to the point in this thread -- lumping them together as 'Greek' is the same as lumping together the various American Indian tribes as 'Native American'.



Ancient Spartans and Ancient Athenians claimed to share the same ethnicity (Fact .Period), Shared Ethnicity means shared culture , language , Relgion and shared ethnical conscience . Both felt that they belonged to the Greek Ethnos. So did All Ioneans and so on .They lived in the Geographical region where a civilization the same Culture, Religion and Language emerged in the past , Mycene .
And While there was several Kingdoms with the same civilization like the Dorians , Ionians the name Hellinas (Greek) was used at around 1000 Bc at the Troyan campaign. Earlier , While some kingdoms did share the common civilization they weren't called by a common name.At least we don't know if they did. However Classical Sparta , Athens where calling each other as Hellene (to indentify their ethnicity , a Greek word), and they did share common values that identify a civilization. There is not a historian alive that doesn't agree with that position .

So please do not support passionately unhistorical opinions in the future before researching first.

scy12: I'm not going to argue with you. I don't have my college textbooks anymore, and Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source in the world. However, saying "Fact. Period" is not an argument. So unless you bring in sources, we'll just have to agree to disagree, because you're not going to convince me you're right otherwise.

scy12: I'm not going to argue with you. I don't have my college textbooks anymore, and Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source in the world. However, saying "Fact. Period" is not an argument. So unless you bring in sources, we'll just have to agree to disagree, because you're not going to convince me you're right otherwise.

The matter of fact is this is how the situation is and their are countless sources that prove it . My internet awkwardness didn't allow me to reach one yet , in English but by the sheer popularity of that fact sooner or later you will reach that conclusion. Nevertheless why support a position you can't be sure to be right ?

Anyway i will search for your source , how hard it may be for an internet newby like me. If you care to assist me by searching for it yourself , the better.

The matter of fact is this is how the situation is and their are countless sources that prove it . My internet awkwardness didn't allow me to reach one yet , in English but by the sheer popularity of that fact sooner or later you will reach that conclusion. Nevertheless why support a position you can't be sure to be right ?

Anyway i will search for your source , how hard it may be for an internet newby like me. If you care to assist me by searching for it yourself , the better.

Well, there's Wikipedia and Google. I tried both; the former agreed with me on the Athenians/Ionians vs Spartans/Dorians, and the latter didn't come up with any hits from what you were talking about. Granted, it's Google, so who knows if I was searching on the correct terms.

Well, there's Wikipedia and Google. I tried both; the former agreed with me on the Athenians/Ionians vs Spartans/Dorians, and the latter didn't come up with any hits from what you were talking about. Granted, it's Google, so who knows if I was searching on the correct terms.

Saying it agreed with me isn't enough and i think you know why . I think it is necessary to expand on how it agrees.

Easily i could say (and i will be right) that all sources i have read for so many years have agreed with my current conclusions but it appears that now i am up to the challenge of finding new ones.

Saying it agreed with me isn't enough and i think you know why . I think it is necessary to expand on how it agrees.

Which is why I dropped the argument: Wikipedia is an unreliable source. It confirms that Athenians considered themselves Ionians here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Athens) :

Athens was not sacked and abandoned at the time of the Doric invasion of about 1200 BC, and the Athenians always maintained that they were "pure" Ionians with no Doric element.

And on the Spartans being Dorian here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta).

But again: it's Wikipedia, and I never use Wiki as an authorative source for an academic debate.


Easily i could say (and i will be right) that all sources i have read for so many years have agreed with my current conclusions but it appears that now i am up to the challenge of finding new ones.

You don't have to find new sources; feel free to cite old sources. I'm adept at using a library. And if I had my sources, I could cite them. But I don't. Which is why I dropped it.

Listen, there's no need to continue this; we're in disagreement and we're off-topic.

Which is why I dropped the argument: Wikipedia is an unreliable source. It confirms that Athenians considered themselves Ionians here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Athens) :


And on the Spartans being Dorian here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta).

But again: it's Wikipedia, and I never use Wiki as an authorative source for an academic debate.



You don't have to find new sources; feel free to cite old sources. I'm adept at using a library. And if I had my sources, I could cite them. But I don't. Which is why I dropped it.

Listen, there's no need to continue this; we're in disagreement and we're off-topic.

Another time ,Another place or now it is no problem for me. I understand you want to research more before debating so that you can be sure that you have the right conclusions ? OK.


It confirms that Athenians considered themselves Ionians here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Athens) :


And on the Spartans being Dorian here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta).

But again: it's Wikipedia, and I never use Wiki as an authorative source for an academic debate.


And While there was several Kingdoms with the same civilization like the Dorians , Ionians the name Hellinas (Greek) was used at around 1000 Bc at the Troyan campaign. Earlier , While some kingdoms did share the common civilization they weren't called by a common name.At least we don't know if they did. However Classical Sparta , Athens where calling each other as Hellene (to indentify their ethnicity , a Greek word), and they did share common values that identify a civilization. There is not a historian alive that doesn't agree with that position .

Let me ask you this: do you consider Classical Athens and Sparta as two separate Civilizations? Or does the common language and (possible) ethnic identification override differences in government, currency, art, and lifestyle?

Let me ask you this: do you consider Classical Athens and Sparta as two separate Civilizations? Or does the common language and (possible) ethnic identification override differences in government, currency, art, and lifestyle?


Civilization is not a word i am currently accustomed (used to) ChrRh but from what i know from the word (Does civilization mean πολιτισμος ?) i would say there are two different cities of the same civilization. It is a historical fact that both belong to the Greek ethnos and share the same ethnical identity (language, customs ,culture ,religion, common ethnical belief etc) . But while they do share and acknowledge one another as a Greek their societies are in some ways fundamentally different . Does it matter ? For a historian yes . While both are Greeks , because Sparta is a military oligarchy and Athena a democracy it would be Odd to have a Spartan or an Athenian rule all Greece when in fact he ruled only his city/Kingdom. So While both Sparta and Athena are a part of the combined Greek civilization presenting one as it's representative (in this example in civilization the game) would be wrong. On the other hand i would like to see Pericles in the game even if it is odd and funny Pericles setlers founding Sparta.

I found this 'review' of a book here (http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/108.2/br_90.html)

The interesting quote from the review is as follows:
As a result, one of the key themes that emerges is the diversity of Greek ethnicity and identity, both in its regional development and in changes over time; Greek ethnicity and identity are not homogeneous phenomena but multifaceted and constantly changing concepts.

Maybe we're both right? I don't know if I have access to that book so I can't be sure.

I want to go back to an earlier post of mine (getting back on questions of Native Americans):

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but should Native Americans/Sioux/Lakota even be in the game? I was under the impressions that cities were a necessary prerequisite for a civilization? Either that or some great technological discoveries or just about possibly, a complicated and unique political structure. I don't see where the Sioux' fit in there.

Let me go get my copy of 1491 for the name ... ah here it is: Cahokia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia)


Some scholars believe that at the height of its development, Cahokia was larger than any city in the U.S. until about 1800, when Philadelphia surpassed Cahokia's estimated peak population.


Remember: if recent research is correct (cf 1491 by Charles C. Mann), over 95% of the Native American population was decimated by the arrival of the Europeans. The reason the European imagination is of loose bands of nomads is because that is what the native population was reduced to.

Now, if we're correct and they're being called Native Americans, the reason it's Sitting Bull is not specifically for the civilization talents of the Sioux but for the leadership talents of Sitting Bull. If they do end up calling them the Sioux, well, then I'm guessing it's still the leadership talents of Sitting Bull that is driving the choice.

/end original post

I'm highlighting this post again because I want to seriously recommend 1491 to anyone out there interested in the Native Civilizations of the Western Hemisphere (North and South) before the arrival of the Europeans. It is an utterly fascinating work, and it does a great job of dispelling several persistent myths, including some anti-White ones (like: it's not our fault we almost hunted the Buffalo to extinction! ... well, ok, it's partly our fault, but there were extenuating circumstances). Many libraries should have this book because it was a fairly popular one upon its release. Go read it!

I found this 'review' of a book here (http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/108.2/br_90.html)

The interesting quote from the review is as follows:
As a result, one of the key themes that emerges is the diversity of Greek ethnicity and identity, both in its regional development and in changes over time; Greek ethnicity and identity are not homogeneous phenomena but multifaceted and constantly changing concepts.

Maybe we're both right? I don't know if I have access to that book so I can't be sure.

That is so vague that i can disagree completely or agree depending of what i make from it.



Well other than Egypt , China and maybe some other civilization or two i am ignorant all civilizations where more or less once barbarians .

I am to agree that in some parts of Greece there was some ethnical uncertainty into how Greek some areas where , there where Barbarians migrated in the area was also being Hellenized . But while some areas weren't always Greek , to say . There was a common Greek identity after a certain part in history in more than one area. There where several regions that believed each other to be Greek . And so the uncertainness of the time wasn't a result of ethnical confusion but into confusion of if Greco-Barbarian cities are actually Greek. That is why i do not accept that Macedonia wasn't 100% Greek (meaning it isn't 100% not Greek not 100% Greek). Because it's Leader was and while it was an area that some Barbarians lived , it was also an area which was under the process of Hellenization. So at some parts , Sparta , Athenian it can be said that it is homogeneous while in others it isn't .


Cristianism did change the way Greeks would define themselfs at a time , so then it is also correct.

"Barbarian" is such a subjective term. ($0.02)

Of course. My point in using the Greeks is twofold: one, I'm educated in their history (as opposed to the Celts, Native Americans, etc.), and two, while the Spartans and Athenians are a lot closer ethnically than Navajo and Lakota, they would have been just as offended to be lumped together (and there'd be heck to pay if you lumped them in with Thebes) as those groups would be.

They might have been offended, but they most certainly share more in common culturally than do any variety of north american tribes. I'm not going to argue that Spartans and Thebans and Athenians all have very distinct cultures, but they arn't different people. I might take offense at being called a Texan or a New Yorker, because they don't share that much in common with me, but we are all still part of an American culture and share alot of similar over-arching traits. Making a Native American civ would be like making a Sub-Saharan African civ. They don't share a language or religion, they have different economies, and have very distinct art. Athenians and Spartans? Well, they have different tastes in the still very greek art, and sure, they have very different lifestyles, but they are still Greek.

I'm kind of confused here. I always thought that there were hundreds of different mayan tribes that made up the mayan civilization. So, what really is the difference between Native Americans? I understand that this is a broader consolidation, but...

"Barbarian" is such a subjective term. ($0.02)

Not really. The Greeks called everyone who didn't speak Greek barbarians, and the Romans reduced it to anyone who didn't speak Greek or Latin.

The Chinese considered everyone around the Middle Kingdom barbarians. The Romans were barbarians to Greeks (before they were Hellenized, in which case they were no longer all that barbaric), but the Romans considered themselves the bringers of civilization (probably :crazyeye:).

The Europeans considered the Americans quite barbaric, even if they were just Jungle-Egyptians who happened to have had a late start.

Yeah, that sounds right enough.

"Barbarian" is such a subjective term. ($0.02)Not really. The Greeks called everyone who didn't speak Greek barbarians, and the Romans reduced it to anyone who didn't speak Greek or Latin.Hence, subjective :mischief:

^
D'oh! Why didn't I think of that?

A lot of minds are still stuck in the "warped' time warp of the 18th century. Of course the Sioux have cities.

http://www.sioux.org/

The European and colonist's views of the Native Americans during the 18th century were very very narrow. Remember, these people were there on the American continent for thousands of years prior to European invasion. It is only ignorance of their history that makes them seem so "unimportant." The Native Americans aren't white and their history isn't written in the white history books with the same amount of detail that is attributed to white civilizations. Does this mean their history, culture, and civilization is any less rich or interesting? We are ignorant of their explorations overseas, of their kings, of their judges and parliament-like governments. We are ignorant of many of their wars, customs, languages, modes of travel, and religion. We are ignorant of many of their cities that were built up and then destroyed by wars and natural disasters. We are ignorant of it because white man was not following along documenting it in a European language for thousands of years and those that met them in the 18th and 19th century were more interested in removing them from their lands than finding out about their culture and history. The Native Americans and their ancestors did write their own records, but many of those records didn't last from both disintegration and deliberate destruction in wartime and political oppression. Some records have lasted and many of us here are simply unaware of them or are unable to understand them. I've attributed to some of those records found in my posts. It is because of ignorance that the native peoples of the American continent have become so stereotyped and the European view of the world is unbalanced.

The Native Americans may have seemed barbaric to the colonists, but the colonists often seemed barbaric to the Native Americans in their ruthlessness towards them. Fortunately, we have some instances of Native Americans and colonists sharing, trading, heroism, and saving each other from starvation.

Why does it matter if Sitting Bull gets the same traits as Saladin? I know they like to use new combos, but it's really not that big of a deal. Maybe spiritual / expansive (Isabella) would work?

Perhaps Sitting Bull could be Pro/Phi ? That would work.
Saladin remain Pro/Spi. And of course always new combos. No sense whatsoever, in my humble opinion, to have leaders with same exact traits!

@WingedPaladin
Centuries of perception cannot be changed easily. The white man has butted into everyone else's business, while everyone else happened to have been savages in the white man's eyes.

IMHO the white man should get a tan.

Definitely North Americans.

The problem with Sioux is that now we have other people coming along saying "if Sioux is added we should have the Iroquois!

but if they call it North Americans then it's all happy happy. (except for the Mayans who should have there own civ) After all the north american tribes aren't that different but when it comes to the Europeans it's completely different. It's a disgrace to polish people to call them Russian, and i don't think the Finns would like to be grouped in with Sweden either.

how are you going to come up with leaders for a europe civ? have 40+ leaders?

Plus differences will be great, how could you have a winged hussaria and a conquistador in the same civ?

How would you decide the city names for a civ called Europe?

It ain't working. I considered grouping in parts of europe, such as a civ called Scandinavia including Vikings, Denmark-Norway, The Lapps, Sweden and Finland. That way instead of adding in Vikings, and Sweden we have Scandinavia who has everybody.

but ounce again i'm gonna say it ain't working with entire europe, it could work with native americans though. (except how are you gonna come up with a way to include the inuits with the rest of the natives without making it look weird)

Also they put in the celts and the celts were never one nation, but many.

Also don't get me wrong, i like to be historically accurate but in a game like this, it's not always 100% needed.

but if they call it North Americans then it's all happy happy. (except for the Mayans who should have there own civ) After all the north american tribes aren't that different but when it comes to the Europeans it's completely different. It's a disgrace to polish people to call them Russian, and i don't think the Finns would like to be grouped in with Sweden either.

Clearly, you know nothing about pre-colombian Americas. Tell me, what exactly do an Apache and an Inuit share other than having (roughly) the same complexion and happening to live on the same continent? You have this extremly ethno-centric view of the world, if you happen to think that all north american natives are the same. Far, far, far from the truth. Thats just as ridiculous as saying a Dinka in southern Sudan is the same person as a Zulu in South Africa. They don't even speak the languages from the same family, let alone have anything in common other than a long history of subjegation to western powers.

Clearly, you know nothing about pre-colombian Americas. Tell me, what exactly do an Apache and an Inuit share other than having (roughly) the same complexion and happening to live on the same continent? You have this extremly ethno-centric view of the world, if you happen to think that all north american natives are the same. Far, far, far from the truth. Thats just as ridiculous as saying a Dinka in southern Sudan is the same person as a Zulu in South Africa. They don't even speak the languages from the same family, let alone have anything in common other than a long history of subjegation to western powers.

Okay, just to chime in, I agree definitely that it should be the Sioux and not the Native Americans, but the last few posts have called them "North Americans" instead of "Native Americans." Now come on guys, there is clearly a difference between North Americans and Native Americans...

Yah, the difference being that the Meso-american and South American civs are also Native Americans, so calling just North American natives Native Americans is dishonest.

Yah, the difference being that the Meso-american and South American civs are also Native Americans, so calling just North American natives Native Americans is dishonest.

Literally, yes, the Meso- and South American cultures are 'native'. However, in the US anyway, 'Native American' has always referred to those cultures our forebears rounded up and exterminated--because many people presume America references the country, not the continents. So to the typical American a Native American is one who lived in the (current) American boundaries when the White Man arrived.

Literally, yes, the Meso- and South American cultures are 'native'. However, in the US anyway, 'Native American' has always referred to those cultures our forebears rounded up and exterminated--because many people presume America references the country, not the continents. So to the typical American a Native American is one who lived in the (current) American boundaries when the White Man arrived.

Thats what laymen think. Laymen are often wrong. American refers to North, South, and Meso- America. It should not matter what people think of when someone says Native American; Firaxis shouldn't be appealing to the lowest common denominator, and really, its not that hard to clear up in the civilopedia text for said civ.

Lets weigh our options: cultural sensitivity (and no, this dosn't mean I'm promoting any PC thuggery) or making it so little Johnny dosn't have to learn something new. Seems like an easy choice to me.

THE SIOuX do not deserve to ve in the game I HATE this civ and I would hate to see the Sioux in my random games, arghhh, who cares about them anyways?! what are their cities and technology?If you don't like the Sioux being in the game would you like to suggest an alternative to that? If you can't come up with on than I suggest for you to not say anything until you have come up with an alternative. As for myself I seriously hope it's the Sioux and not a Native Americans because if they call it the latter they are grouping together groups of people that have almost nothing in similar. It's almost like having a civ that groups Africa and China together. If the civ is Native America then I most likely will not buy the game until someone makes something correcting the problem.

Thats what laymen think. Laymen are often wrong. American refers to North, South, and Meso- America. It should not matter what people think of when someone says Native American; Firaxis shouldn't be appealing to the lowest common denominator, and really, its not that hard to clear up in the civilopedia text for said civ.

Lets weigh our options: cultural sensitivity (and no, this dosn't mean I'm promoting any PC thuggery) or making it so little Johnny dosn't have to learn something new. Seems like an easy choice to me.


Actually, 'American' doesn't. No native of Brazil would respond positively to being called an American. Is it technically correct that this is so? Of course not. But there's not much anyone can do about it at this juncture in linguistics. Language is, right wrong or indifferent. It's not the job of Firaxis to ensure technical proficiency in the naming of its Civilizations; their job is to make money.

EDIT: I've never liked the 'continental' references to an individual's origin: "Asian", "European", "African" ("Australian" is a grey area due to the aborigines). At best they are an inaccurate stereotype (I work with several "Asians": one from China, two from India, and one from Pakistan and believe me they in no way resemble one another) and at worst they demonstrate a racist bias (because "Europeans" oftentimes refers to a White Western European). With that gross inaccuracy already present in the language, why would we want to add 'American' to the mix -- and reference two continents to boot? Heck, at this point, 'American' referring just to the United States is often a gross inaccuracy between reality and perception.

I know there are many that get upset that 'American' frequently refers to a resident of the United States. But as I said above, there's little that can be done about it, so why waste energy on it? And besides, no one ever criticizes Ecuador, so why 'America'?

I can just see the headlines if they'd called them something different:

Chief Sitting Bull of the Redskins...
Chief Sitting Bull of the Savages...
Chief Sitting Bull of the Indians...

Sioux gets my vote because it's more logical, but I suppose I'll be happy so long as they're in the game one way or the other.

EDIT: I've never liked the 'continental' references to an individual's origin: "Asian", "European", "African" ("Australian" is a grey area due to the aborigines). At best they are an inaccurate stereotype (I work with several "Asians": one from China, two from India, and one from Pakistan and believe me they in no way resemble one another) and at worst they demonstrate a racist bias (because "Europeans" oftentimes refers to a White Western European). With that gross inaccuracy already present in the language, why would we want to add 'American' to the mix -- and reference two continents to boot? Heck, at this point, 'American' referring just to the United States is often a gross inaccuracy between reality and perception.

I know there are many that get upset that 'American' frequently refers to a resident of the United States. But as I said above, there's little that can be done about it, so why waste energy on it? And besides, no one ever criticizes Ecuador, so why 'America'?

Thats exactly the point; Native American is un-specific and lumps every pre-colombian person living in the Americas together, which is just as rediculous as calling a person an Asian, or Africa, since an Incan and a Sioux, or even a Navajo and Apache, people living in the same region, are just as different if not more than a man in Vladivostok and a guy in Beijing.

Thats exactly the point; Native American is un-specific and lumps every pre-colombian person living in the Americas together, which is just as rediculous as calling a person an Asian, or Africa, since an Incan and a Sioux, or even a Navajo and Apache, people living in the same region, are just as different if not more than a man in Vladivostok and a guy in Beijing.


I don't think anyone disagrees that trying to lump together Native Americans is doing them a disservice. But it's like I said way back earlier in this thread: it's a choice of evils. Presuming there are multiple leaders (Pontiac, e.g.), I'm willing to put aside my concerns about the Civ being called 'Native American'. If the other choice is no representation whatsoever, I'd rather deal with inaccuracy than exclusion.

Ask a "European" what is he, and he will respond, "I am French." "I am German." "I am Irish."

Ask a "Native American" what is he, and he will respond, "I am Navajo." "I am Sioux." "I am Cherokee."

Ask a "Polynesian" what is he, and he will respond, "I am Samoan." "I am Hawaiian." "I am Tongan."

Ask a "South American" what is he, and he will respond, "I am Peruvian." "I am Brazilian." "I am Chilean."

Why is it that Europe would receive specific attention and that other areas of the world are generalized or otherwise ignored? It is a matter of perspective. It is easier to think of what one has learned the most about as more important than to consider the same importance to that to which one knows very little. It is a stretch to see from the eyes of another culture and see how they view themselves and the world.

I vote Sioux.
Because I really can't see any argument against this.

And I would have nothing against separate "Iroquis" or "Apachi" either. Or whatever other distinct Native North American civ one may think of.

Because Native American...is about as good as "Native Eurasian"

while the Spartans and Athenians are a lot closer ethnically than Navajo and Lakota, they would have been just as offended to be lumped together (and there'd be heck to pay if you lumped them in with Thebes) as those groups would be.
Depends at what time in history. Spartans and Athenians have been recognizing their cultural and ethnical kinship for a long time. Same gods, same rituals, same cultural manifestations (Olympics anyone?), same language, same familial organization (Oikos), etc.
Your analogy is simply a very bad one. Why do you think they allied themselves against the Persians? Because they knew they shared a kinship compared to the Persian and they wanted to protect it. Read Herodotus.
- The Celt is also a bad analogy since the Celts clearly shared cultural and linguistics kinship much closer than the Native american tribes.

I'd vote for a Sioux and a Iroquois civ. Native american is an insult and it's ethnocentric.

monkspider's original discovery of hidden leader art in Vanilla Civ 4 included Crazy Horse. Might he possibly be a second leader? He was Sioux wasn't he? Well, if he's also in they still might be called the Sioux.

Yes, Crazy Horse is Sioux... or Lakota, same as Sitting Bull.

Native Americans.

Ask a "European" what is he, and he will respond, "I am French." "I am German." "I am Irish."

Ask a "Native American" what is he, and he will respond, "I am Navajo." "I am Sioux." "I am Cherokee."

Ask a "Polynesian" what is he, and he will respond, "I am Samoan." "I am Hawaiian." "I am Tongan."

Ask a "South American" what is he, and he will respond, "I am Peruvian." "I am Brazilian." "I am Chilean."

Why is it that Europe would receive specific attention and that other areas of the world are generalized or otherwise ignored? It is a matter of perspective. It is easier to think of what one has learned the most about as more important than to consider the same importance to that to which one knows very little. It is a stretch to see from the eyes of another culture and see how they view themselves and the world.

Very well put. The seperate tribes actually had cultural differences. As such they should be represented to reflect this. As much as some people wish to believe that putting the Sioux in and then adding the Blackfoot in would be putting the same civ in twice, they are wrong. clumping them together is very much the same as saying that Europe should only be 1 civ.

Lakota is more accurate than Dakota (the sound in their lanuage is between a L and a D, but is a little closer to an L). I wouldn't mind calling them Lakota, but I agree that calling them sioux would be derogatory.

Since their unique building is not of Lakota make, Native American might be better. I would prefer several more specific groups: Algonquin, Lakota, Apache, Muskigee (Creek), Tslagi (Cherokee), ect. However, one civ per tribe would probably be too much, and none of these civs were as advanced as some which disappeared between the time of the first explorers and the first settlements (due largely to disease and to pigs)

I added a poll to this thread. :)

I added a poll to this thread. :)

I voted other...thinking Lakota, despite that goofy totem pole.:crazyeye: If there's an additional Native American leader non-Lakota, then I'll live with it since they'll have made the Civ a conglomeration of the Native American tribes/nations.

Having a generic Native American civ would really bother me. The fact is that each tribe is a distinct culture and civilization. It is like having Europe be a civ with bullfighting rings as it's building, panzers as it's unique unit and Henry VIII as the leader. It should be Sioux (or Dakota), Iroquois, Cherokee or nothing.

If they are considering it, it makes me worried that muddleheaded thingking may in the end kill this franchise.

I've been playing this game since I bought Civ I for my Super Nintendo and have never been much of a whiner about it. I'm not one of those people who comes on the board when a new version comes out and complains about how it has ruined the game. My experience is that all of the past mistakes have been gameplay issues but they have generally gotten the big picture cultural stuff right. I fear that as the game gets more complex they have a greater chance of dropping the ball on the cultural, social and economic details which would ruin the game completely. I have a feeling that computer technology is now good enough that the complexity it allows in a world simulator may be beyond the scope of people who are trained in programming. It is important to understand the world, how it is, how it operates and how it became what it is. I wonder if they have that sort of liberal arts generalist on their staff right now, perhaps they should hire one of the editors of the Economist.

I added a poll to this thread. :)

Thank you Thunderfall. I didn't know how to do that. :goodjob:

I agree with "Lakota" or "Dakota". To me, the more indigenous to the actual culture and nation the name is, the better.

I would prefer Sioux, as I said. However, someone else mentioned an interesting possibility: if they do name them the Native Americans, perhaps each city will be named after a tribe. That way, you'd have full representation.

Having a generic Native American civ would really bother me. The fact is that each tribe is a distinct culture and civilization. It would be like having Europe be a civ with bullfighting rings as it's building, panzers as it's unique unit and Henry VIII as the leader. It should be Sioux (or Dakota), Iroquois, Cherokee or nothing.

If they are considering it, it makes me worried that muddleheaded thingking may in the end kill this franchise.

I've been playing this game since I bought Civ I for my Super Nintendo and have never been much of a whiner about it. I'm not one of those people who comes on the board when a new version comes out and complains about how it has ruined the game. My experience is that all of the past mistakes have been gameplay issues but they have gotten the big picture cultural stuff right.

You must have been pissed about the Mounted Warriors in Civ3 then right??
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/civilizations/iroquois.php

They made a similar cultural mistake with the UU previously. Where people as outraged when civ3 came out?

Atleast naming the civ Native American makes up for mistakes like having a horse UU for the Iroquois or a Northwestern Indian Totem Pole UB for the Sioux. I would also have preferred they be called Lakota and have a fitting UU and UB, but I don't think giving a generic name, and combining other tribes buildings or units, is really a big deal.

EDIT: @Gaius Octavius...I was gong to mention Thedren's idea as well, but forgot to. I think it would be an exciting idea.

You must have been pissed about the Mounted Warriors in Civ3 then right??
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/civilizations/iroquois.php

They made a similar cultural mistake with the UU previously. Where people as outraged when civ3 came out?

A little bit but for much of their history they had horses, Iroquois history did not end with the settlement of Plymouth. The Iroquois peak was when they were the 3rd player in (what Francis Parkman called) the "Great Game of North America" between the English and the French and they had horses then (and guns as well). The fact that the names of the Sioux villages in Civ 2 were not actual Sioux villages bothered me a lot more because how long does it take to look that up? Back then I found it on the web in 15 minutes, plus it should have been Dakota. But in neither case was it a stitched together civilization. In terms of culture and language the Tlinglit and the Cherokee are as different as the Irish are from the Ukranians.

The secret to creating any wonderful thing, be it a computer game or a glace de viande (i'm a chef) is nailing all the details perfectly. If they can get it 99 or 100 percent right why settle for 95 percent?

The secret to creating any wonderful thing, be it a computer game or a glace de viande (i'm a chef) is nailing all the details perfectly. If they can get it 99 or 100 percent right why settle for 95 percent?

Because in the corperate world of today, people don't demand quality anymore. When your TV breaks now, you no longer take it to get repaired because it is cheaper, you go buy a new one. This atitude has contaminated many other areas of industry including video games. Money is what is important over quality in the business world. They would prefer the 95% and faster money than waiting for it to be at 100% before releasing it to the consumer. Most games out there are only at about 70-90% quality. So people that go for 95% pat themselves on the back for it.

I am not saying I agree with this, and I actually do what I can when I can to not support this kind of attitude. But not many people care what they invest in much anymore. All they are loooking for is 'good enough' which often falls in the 70-90% catagory.

Sioux would be much more stupid than Native Americans. They didnt even have cities. Now they can include cities like Cahokia and buildings like totem pole for Native Americans. We have Celts, though Celtic tribes never formed one Empire. Still this fact doesnt bother most people?

The problem is that we dont know much about great North American cultures like Anazasis. Who would be their leader or what would be their UU or UB? If we should pick some tribe, that should be Iroquois, Powhatan, Cherokee or some other civilised tribe.

Sitting Bull is picked up as leader becouse he united native americans from many different tribes to fight against europeans. Tecumseh would be great leader too, becouse he tried to unite North-American tribes.

Sioux would be much more stupid than Native Americans. They didnt even have cities. Now they can include cities like Cahokia and buildings like totem pole for Native Americans. We have Celts, though Celtic tribes never formed one Empire. Still this fact doesnt bother most people?

It bothers plenty of people but the Celts have a lot of popular backing on the grounds that they were in previous versions of Civ. That explanation is also the reason why the Zulu keep managing to make it in to each new version of Civ.

Is it confirmed that Native Americans are a civilization or is the name Native Americans only in a scenario? In an interview was said that the Sitting Bull has an interesting trait combo, but had he said about Native Americans? I think that there is a colonization scenario which has Native Americans as a one group, but the game has only Sioux(or possibly Iroquois too). Maybe this is just a plot of Firaxis to make us talk about it and then be excited when we see the truth.

It bothers plenty of people but the Celts have a lot of popular backing on the grounds that they were in previous versions of Civ. That explanation is also the reason why the Zulu keep managing to make it in to each new version of Civ.
What's more, the Celts were a group of tribes sharing similar language and culture. "Native Americans" is an arbitrary term, simply referring to any pre-Columbian inhabitant of the continents. It'd be like having a "European" civ which covered Celts, Germans, Scandinavians, Slavs, Iberians, Romans and Greeks. Besides, the Greeks and Sumerians are also included, and they never formed a single nation, either- until Alexander, the Greeks had four distinct tribes and languages, with many independent city-states.
As for the Zulus, they are actually a single tribe, and at one point had a defined territory, just as the Scots or Danes of Europe.
Still, I agree with the argument that the Sioux never actually formed a civilisation- they'd be much better off going for one of the Agrarian tribes, as they did in Civ3. At least then they may be able to avoid calling the cities things like Wounded Knee (that's like making the Israelite capital Auschwitz).

Souix is a negative word, basically an insulting term that Whites picked up from the Indians to describe a tribe. Obviously somebody at Firaxis has actually bothered to do a bit of homework.

I'm in the Sioux/Lakota camp myself, but I will take any Native American tribe to be included in the xpack at this point. I am looking forward to returning to play a Native American civ.

Sorta off-topic, but not really: HBO will be airing "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" tonight, which describes the plight of the Lakota during those awful Dawes days. Hopefully a good program that describes some of the points raised in this thread.

Sitting Bull is a historical figure for a real nation. This nation still exists today. So I vote Sioux. Though I would have choosen "Other" and written in Lakota. But I voted Sioux to help the Sioux option to trump the Native American option.

"Native Americans" as a civ in the game of civ is fiction. Better to have a fictional leader
named Big Red Man than to have Sitting Bull lead a nation that builds Totem Poles.


Personally I am Very Happy to see the Lakota make it into the game. But the civ should be called the Lakota Nation. And the UB should be uniquely Lakota. I suggest an Inipi (Sweat Lodge). Or perhaps a Tipi or Travois. I understand balance is difficult and civ traits must be taken into consideration. But I think something could have been done which respected the people and their history.

I think it would be better call them "North american natives", because Maya, Aztecs and Incas are american natives too..
However, i prefer Sioux: it's more accurated and in this way it's possible to have a second "north american native" civ, like the Iroquois..

I want the Sioux for sure, "Native Americans" with all the same stuff, totem pole, blah blah blah doesn't do them justice. Its kind of a generalization, as my father would say. :goodjob:

I votet for Sioux.

Native Americans is too wide spread. It would be like "The Europeans". The Sioux are like the Greeks (Athenians, Spartans, Macedonians...) or the Vikings (Noreway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland) a Group of different peoples. Theres three major groupes, the Dakota, the Lakota and the Nakota. These gropus are also devided into tribes like the Oglala, the Hunkpapa, the Brule and much more.

And of course the Sioux deserve to be a civ in Civilization! They existed before the white men ever entered the American Continent. Between 800 AD and 1300 AD they began to conquer the area west of the Mississippi. The where farmers and sedentary(!) until the 18th century, when they adopted the horse and startet to become nomadic.

I voted for native Americans strictly for gaming purpose.

I'd rather have native Americans put in as 1 civ rather then having 5 different civs for native America.

I leave the dividing up to the modders. But seriously. Native American Empire?

And to back up my opinion, If they put in the Sioux, They have to put in the Iroquois then the Cherokee then the etc. Instead of more deserving civs like the Ethiopians. That is how i think it would be, and that is likely how it will be, but in my opinion i'd rather have it split. but again with many other deserving civs like Ethiopia and Polynesia, it's not worth it to have 5 native American civs.

Instead of more deserving civs like the Ethiopians.

If they put the Ethiopians in as a civ, they should put my family in as a civ! :lol:

i rather have the Iroquois in insted

I want the Iroquois but I still want Sitting Bull. Sitting Bull is da Bomb!

If they put the Ethiopians in as a civ, they should put my family in as a civ! :lol:
I have to say that would not be unreasonable to tell you the truth.

I kinda don't like not having a tribe specific name for them.:cry:

guh so yah that means like it would be Sioux city (it's a real city somewhere in the us lol) Iroquois city, Inuit city? god this sucks.

If they put the Ethiopians in as a civ, they should put my family in as a civ! :lol:

Our you're a member of the Ethiopian Imperial family or you didn't pay attention during History on school.

O ja, werd niet over gesproken in de nederlandse scholen.:lol:

Sioux PWNS!!!

O ja, werd niet over gesproken in de nederlandse scholen.:lol:

Are you mocking my people??! :trouble:
Whatever, I want Sioux. Saying that all Native Americans were the same is a huge generalization. They had wars with eachother and fought over land and stuff. I think it will be Sioux too because Sitting Bull is in there. :p

guh so yah that means like it would be Sioux city (it's a real city somewhere in the us lol) Iroquois city, Inuit city? god this sucks.

Sioux City, Iowa