I was just thinking about the Native American/Sioux civ.

There are a fair number of reservations and indians living in Minnesota. I don't know if people realize this but most indians in the US call themselves Indian or Native, not Native American. Native American is a pc white person word that sounds like it was made up by a comittee, I know some people who find it mildly insulting. Anyway the proper name for the Sioux is Dakota (or Lakota). Sioux is what the French Canadian fur trappers called them back in the Voyageur era.

Thank you for letting us know. :)

Yeah my political behavior actually said that most 'native americans' polled actually preferred to be called Indians.

Well the problem is in Civ 4 there already ARE Indians, and Natives is too Generic. Although Native American is also technically too Generic, it is better than Native, especially if they want to include multiple (non Souix) leaders from the "Natives".

Assuming they are trying to make a civ covering not just the Souix, but all of the Natives north of Mexico, then Native Americans is probably the best, perhaps Amerindians might work (I've heard the term somewhere before)

I'd prefer Amerindian or Sioux to Native American. It's too clunky to say, anyway.

We're forgetting something: there are "three" names for each civ: long name, short name, adjective, e.g., American Empire, America, American. So it could go something like "Native American Empire" (ugh), "Amerindians," "Amerindian."

Native American is a pc white person word that sounds like it was made up by a comittee
Very true! Funniest description yet. I always thought the Indians (oops) didn't really give a hoot what we called them; they were more ticked off that we took their land than anything else.

Rofl Native American Empire...

really off history there... Did native americans north of mexico even have natives?

Native American is a pc white person word that sounds like it was made up by a comittee.



Whats wrong with Native American. It is a very exact specific term that accuratly describes the original inhabitants of North and South America. We all agree that they are natives of the 2 continents, right?



In any event any name is better that that blasted Indian one. Its a name spawned by people's ignorance hundreds of years ago. Continuing to use that name when we know better just makes us all look like idiots who have no basic education.


The name byzantine thats used wrongly to describe the East Roman Empire also needs to die.

Someone said Byzantine is also a wrong term itself. The "byzantine empire" is apparently a wrong term as well. Byzantines considered themselves Romans, So did the East Roman Empire.

At least that's what i heard someone say, it might be wrong info though. If someone could, instead of yelling at me, just inform me what is actually true.

Since I happened to have studied a little about the Romans ;), here's what I'll tell you:

The Byzantine Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire which continued as a separate entity after the collapse of Western Rome in the 5th century. They continued to think of and style themselves as Romans right up until the end in 1453. However, to call it the "Roman Empire" is not exactly correct, either. By the time of Justinian, Eastern Rome was undergoing major changes that would be characteristically Byzantine, notably the full merger of Christianity and Imperial law and culture. (Plus there's the emergence of the Orthodox Church as opposed to the Catholics, which is a big division.) Byzantine civilization became very distinct from Roman civilization even though they were, ultimately, deeply interconnected. So I am fine with "Byzantine Empire." It's not anymore wrong than using the phrase "Greek civilization" to refer to the early non-unified city-states of Greece.

Whats wrong with Native American. It is a very exact specific term that accuratly describes the original inhabitants of North and South America. We all agree that they are natives of the 2 continents, right?



In any event any name is better that that blasted Indian one. Its a name spawned by people's ignorance hundreds of years ago. Continuing to use that name when we know better just makes us all look like idiots who have no basic education.


The name byzantine thats used wrongly to describe the East Roman Empire also must die.

I believe they crossed the ocean to get here. Just like us Europeans only earlier. They have type B blood and the skin flap in the eye. They and one other group of people share these traits. The Asians. Thats right, they migrated here from Asia during the last Ice Age. They are not native either.

I was born in California. That kind of makes me a Native American even though I have no Indian in me.

What about the term "first Nations"

What about the term "first Nations"

Also innacurate. Last I checked, most anthropologists believe that mankind originated in Africa, though whether or not they had developed anything that would be considered a "nation" is questionable.

I prefer the term PLWHPDSCE(NE)DSP: People Living in the Western Hemisphere Prior to the Discovery and Subsequent Conquest by Europeans (Norse Excluded) and the Descendants of Said People.

What about the term "first Nations"

Too Canadian.

Also innacurate. Last I checked, most anthropologists believe that mankind originated in Africa, though whether or not they had developed anything that would be considered a "nation" is questionable.

I meant North American First nations.

And yes a bit to Canadian. In fact i think i learned it in my 2 years of my life in Toronto. So i guess it's sorta what the Canadians call native Americans.

Calling them anything with "Indian" would be a bit confusing. I'd rather use "American Indians" as well, but for the fact that we already have "Indians" from India.

I motion for a cursing of Christopher Columbus' lack of geographical knowledge.

It's very problematic to come up with a proper term but Native American, American Indian fits better than a variety of other terms, and comes up the most in 'official' organizations when I google it.
The Canadian "First Nations" name is cool, but I doubt it's been ratified by North American Indians either.

It think in this case that it's better to stay with one civ, and then allow a very large number of leaderheads.

I was just thinking about the Native American/Sioux civ.

There are a fair number of reservations and indians living in Minnesota. I don't know if people realize this but most indians in the US call themselves Indian or Native, not Native American. Native American is a pc white person word that sounds like it was made up by a comittee, I know some people who find it mildly insulting. Anyway the proper name for the Sioux is Dakota (or Lakota). Sioux is what the French Canadian fur trappers called them back in the Voyageur era.



As an Italian-American, I motion for cursing the composite ignorance of mankind instead.


Calling them anything with "Indian" would be a bit confusing. I'd rather use "American Indians" as well, but for the fact that we already have "Indians" from India.

I motion for a cursing of Christopher Columbus' lack of geographical knowledge.

I second the American Indians, if Sioux is not used. It rolls off the tongue easier.

I believe they crossed the ocean to get here. Just like us Europeans only earlier. They have type B blood and the skin flap in the eye. They and one other group of people share these traits. The Asians. Thats right, they migrated here from Asia during the last Ice Age. They are not native either.

I was born in California. That kind of makes me a Native American even though I have no Indian in me.

Actually, there is now some debate going on about where the First Americans came from. One theory even suggests they came from the Iberian Peninsula!

I teach History and typically use the term "Indian". I just can't bring myself to say "Native American" since that's also a misnomer.

The joke is, of course, that calling people of South and North America "Americans" is silly. In that "America" comes from the explorer Amerigo Vespucci. So, if we wanted to be properly named after the European who opened up the Western Hemisphere to European colonization, we'd all be Colombians.

I think the best terminology to use is not how Historians decided to name them but how they named themselfs in their language or if we want in a translation of the terminology they used in English. Other than that the name Native Americans for one tribe is also wrong for the usual reasons that were said.

The joke is, of course, that calling people of South and North America "Americans" is silly. In that "America" comes from the explorer Amerigo Vespucci. So, if we wanted to be properly named after the European who opened up the Western Hemisphere to European colonization, we'd all be Colombians.
Common misconception, actually- it is now known that "America" is named after the Welsh businessman Richard Amerike who funded John Cabot's voyage to Newfoundland in 1497- Cabot would have been expected to name any discoveries after his financier. Originally, it only applied to the areas which Cabot actually explored, but it eventually came to be used for the entirety of both continents. Essentially, "America" is the feminine Latin form of "Amerike Land".
The great irony of the phrase "Native American" is that acknowledges their position as the native peoples, but still forces a foreign name upon them. Still, as Scy12 said, if you're going to use a blanket term for an entire race of people, then it's only fair that it's in the one language which they share- English (at least in the context of those tribes from the modern USA and Canada).

I'm not gonna say you're wrong, but I'll say I'm not familiar w/ the theory you gave. I'd love to read up on it, if you have any references.

Regarding the Vespucci claim the wikipedia does a decent job covering the basics. I'm actually linking to the cartographer who is thought to have first adapted the name "America".

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Waldseem%C3%BCller).

I'm going to start using the new term "Siberian Colombians".

I digress, but even Wiki holds this as a fringe theory. This forum is the very first time ever that I've heard of this theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Amerike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas#Naming
Edit: but perhaps this is merely evidence of time travelers creating paradoxes in our history :lol:

Common misconception, actually- it is now known that "America" is named after the Welsh businessman Richard Amerike who funded John Cabot's voyage to Newfoundland in 1497- Cabot would have been expected to name any discoveries after his financier.

:lol: I love it when competing posters both link to wikipedia as their only source.

I also have never heard of this theory, and always believed it was named after Amerigo.

Well the problem is in Civ 4 there already ARE Indians, and Natives is too Generic. Although Native American is also technically too Generic, it is better than Native, especially if they want to include multiple (non Souix) leaders from the "Natives".

Assuming they are trying to make a civ covering not just the Souix, but all of the Natives north of Mexico, then Native Americans is probably the best, perhaps Amerindians might work (I've heard the term somewhere before)



Indians are from India...
The civilization, tribes etc... who live in AMERICA (ALL CONTINENT, not just USA) where natives... so i dont think at least in south america that they whant to be called indians... They have their nations name, like iroquis, or from south america, mapuches, tehuelches....

It's the same with those of Oceania; "Polynesia" is a Greek word whereas Hawai'i, Tahiti, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and Māori are indigenous names and words. I went to a lū'au today and the girls that danced were wearing haku or a ring of leaves in their hair. I thought, "Wouldn't that be funny if the Greeks got that idea from the Hawaiians or vice versa." Highly unlikely, but a thought.

Yes I admit it, it's too :mad: convenient to not use wiki.
:sad:

Three alternate sources for the name "america" at about the same time in history tells me time travellers are afoot.:crazyeye:

:lol: I love it when competing posters both link to wikipedia as their only source.

I also have never heard of this theory, and always believed it was named after Amerigo.

My big problem is that "Native American", "Native" or even "Indian" are all too generic. Plus the souix seem to be the LEAST appropriate native american tribe to be called a "Civilization" in either civ terms, or real terms. The term civilization comes from a term meaning city, and as I seem to recall the souix abandoned their settlements and became horse riding nomads early on.

Beyond that north america has a number of "Civilizations" that could be included. The Pueblo certainly were city building farmers, so where the Mound Builders on the Ohio/missisipi, the Iroquois confederation, and of course the Cherokee actually adopted white ways and had plantations and slaves in their nation before the trail of tears.

So there are plenty of "civilizations" too choose from that seem better suited to the game than the soux, and less generic than the "native Americans". It almost seems the souix are included because they have a well known leader. But sequoia of the Cherokee (who invented the cherokee alphabet) is just as well known.

We ought to call the Native American Tribes "American" and simply change the those other Americans to something else (e.g., United Staters)! :lol:

My big problem is that "Native American", "Native" or even "Indian" are all too generic.
I agree. It'd be like rolling the Celts, Germans, Scandinavians, Romans, Greeks, etc. into one, generic "European" civ and making the leader William Wallace on the basis that a lot of people have heard of him.
At least with the Celts or Scandinavians, they all shared a lot of language and culture, if not the same nation, but "Native American" is an arbitrary and euro-centric name for a civ.

Is there a generic native word for "the great Land" ? something that can suit an hypothetical alliance of north american natives clans and/or tribes.

It's the same with those of Oceania; "Polynesia" is a Greek word whereas Hawai'i, Tahiti, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and Māori are indigenous names and words. I went to a lū'au today and the girls that danced were wearing haku or a ring of leaves in their hair. I thought, "Wouldn't that be funny if the Greeks got that idea from the Hawaiians or vice versa." Highly unlikely, but a thought.

Well I've never heard of any complaints from the Polynesian people about being called Polynesian as native Americans do when there called native Americans.

I think some of the problems with unifying an official name is that North American Native American tribes are actually a large number of diverse cultures initially, and probably developed over at least two separate waves of immigration from Asia. So there's quite a bit of dissimilarity. It'd probably be best to have 5 or 6 leaderheds for the basic game (to represent some of the diversity of the tribes), but stick with the name that the English gave them, even if it's an oversimplification.
The Iroquois were closest to starting a unifying body (on the flipside the Cherokee were considered the most advanced at the time the Europeans were trying to have influence) if you want a hypothetical alliance, but really such a scenario would be like the China Unification scenario. You'd have to play it out to figure what culture/lingos would dominate to figure out what the final name would be. Though when I tried to do something like this in Civ3, I came up with a Haida vs. Cherokee vs. Iroquois vs. Sioux. And that ignores Hopi/Apache


Is there a generic native word for "the great Land" ? something that can suit an hypothetical alliance of north american natives clans and/or tribes.

Well I've never heard of any complaints from the Polynesian people about being called Polynesian as native Americans do when there called native Americans.

I am "Polynesian" and would much rather be called "Hawaiian" than "Polynesian" because I am Hawaiian. If I were Hawaiian, Tahitian, Samoan, Tongan, Maori, and Fijian I might not mind so much. It means a lot to Hawaiians to be Hawaiian. Mistake a Tongan for a Samoan and it may be your last. ;) Historically, they are long time rivals.

I just think it'll be absolutely hilarious when Roosevelt meets Sitting Bull in-game.

"The American Empire greets a new potential ally!"
"The Native American Empire returns the greeting!""
"...Wait, what?"
"Well, obviously, we were here before you, no?"

It'll also look pretty strange if you end up at war with both of them at once:

"A Mine has been pillaged by a marauding American Cavalry!"
"A Cottage has been pillaged by a marauding Native American Cavalry!"

rofl

So anyway, are there any Celts living in Europe who don't want to be called "celt" or they don't mind?

same with the Zulu isn't the name they call themselves gnubi or something like that?

As a man who's Native to America (born in Louisiana, no less!) I think the name is just silly, for all of the reasons listed here.

If they don't come up with a better name before July 23, it will be changed within minutes of installation on my computer.

Into what?

what will be the name?

can u even consider the native americans a civilazation??
i whould prefer one tribe over just genaric native american.

Into what?

what will be the name?

In my case, probably Poland or something of that nature :)

I see no particular reason to include an ethnic group which had virtually no influence on history, but that's a different debate. My point here is: Why worry what Firaxis calls them, when you can call them whatever you want (and download a leaderhead to suit)?

same with the Zulu isn't the name they call themselves gnubi or something like that?
"Celtic" is a broad ethnic group, referring to Scots, Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Manx and Breton people (and some Galacians and Austurians also think of themselves as Celts as well). They (we) wouldn't object to the term "Celt", but people tend to go buy their national or regional identity, rather than by a broad term like Celt.
The difference between "Celt" and "Native American", though, is that the Celts were a group of related linguistic and cultural groups, rather than a term for an entire race. The equivalent of "Native American" would just be "Caucasian".

The difference between "Celt" and "Native American", though, is that the Celts were a group of related linguistic and cultural groups, rather than a term for an entire race. The equivalent of "Native American" would just be "Caucasian".Indeed! The reason why some people may have a problem with the term Native American is that it lumps all the various peoples together. From this comes misunderstanding, disrespect and in the extreme it feeds racism. A caucasian from England would not want to be linked to the caucasians from Germany in such a way that the Holocaust becomes associated with them. This kind of generalization happens with Native Americans. This leads to erroneous stereotypes such as scalping, peacepipes, praying to many gods etc. The various peoples of North America were quite diverse. They had differant ways, language, religion, geneology etc.

When speaking collectively of the aboriginal peoples of North America, I use the term Native American generically because there is no commonly used alternative for mainstream use. In some circles I use the term First Nations. But when I speak of the Lakota Nation I say Lakota. When I speak of the Nez Perce I say Nez Perce. In popular media these peoples should not be lumped together like they have in this game. If a specific leader or a certain custom is mentioned, then it should be attributed to the correct civilization.

Since Sitting Bull is the leader, the civ should be the Lakota Nation. At the very least it should be called the Sioux Nation, but it would be great if this game would use this oppurtunity to be casual educators. But Firaxis has done the opposite and it kindof pisses me off how they did it. Apparently the Totem Pole will be Sitting Bulls Unique Building. That is just WRONG! It is ignorant and disrespectfull for Firaxis to associate the Totem Pole with Sitting Bulls people. The Totem Pole was not a part of their society. It had nothing to do with them. It perpetuates ignorant generalization of North American aboriginal socieites. After the harmfull misinformation that came out of the movie industry, and the erroneous sterotypes that persist in popular media, I think it is high time that creators of media be factually responsible for their content. Hundreds of thousands of people will likely buy this expansion and many of them may now wrongfully associate the Lakota peoples with Totem Poles. This might not sound like a big deal to some. But to me it is wrong for a historically based game like Civ to perpetuate this kind of ignorant stereotyping.

I don`t totally agree.

I think you could see this from a different point of view. Sitting Bull was a Sioux Leader, but remember that his troops who defeated general Custer were from many different tribes. At that battle he was a leader for Lakota, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho.

As I said before, there were many Native leaders who tried to unite Native American tribes to fight against europeans. From that point of view we could see that "Native American" and "Sitting Bull" represent Native Americans who united in their fight against intruders.

I think you could see this from a different point of view. Sitting Bull was a Sioux Leader, but remember that his troops who defeated general Custer were from many different tribes. At that battle he was a leader for Lakota, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho.
True, but that still limits him to leading the Great Plain's tribes. It's not really fair to have him represent a group like the Iroquois, who had nothing to do with him, or even other plains tribes which he had no connection to, such as the Cheyenne.

Well they really could make up for it by giving the Native Americans 2 Leaders out of the Gate, Sitting Bull and perhaps an Iroquis Leader.

As it is, unfortunately, most of the pre-Columbian civilizations primary impact on history today was as subjugated populations. While it would be good to have Iroquois, Lakota, Cheyenne, etc. Firaxis proably decided they wanted to fit those multiple groups in without using all that space. So they got the Native Americans in Collectively [Sitting Bull for the name recognition, and the other tribes for having elements of potential contribution/impact on world history]

I see no particular reason to include an ethnic group which had virtually no influence on history

Perhaps not your European history. Remember, these people covered two continents and were a formidable threat to colonists gobbling up their land and claiming it as their own. They had their own millennia of history Europeans were generally ignorant of. The colonists' eyes saw "free land" and that superseded the reality that they were stealing from, killing, and driving out those to whom the land belonged for thousands of years.

At least in a small way the injustice done is being recompensed in the form of affirmative action and self-determination in the form of reservations but the American Indian nations we see today doesn't even come close to what was 300 years ago. Foreign invasion and disease really took its toll on the great cultures of the American continents.

Technically, all humans are nativ to Africa and/or the Middle East depending on which evolutionary theories you believe.

Native Americans is to clunky and also seems further demeaning saying that none of the many cultures within that collective term are valid of being thier own civ (except for Meso-American...as they include the Aztecs/Mayans/Incans). Not giving them a "proper" name like Lakota/Sioux or Iroqouis is further demeaning really.

Also Native American and American seem odd next to each other in the game.

Iroqouis would be a good choice as would the Lakota/Sioux. Even using either of those two names would be MUCH better.

A name that sounds like it could be the real name of a people is good, even Amerindian sounds at least partially like the name of a civ/nation.

I'm leaning toward calling Sitting Bull's civilization "the Sioux" though that's not necessarily what they called themselves. I wonder why they chose Totem Pole, since that's a part of the culture of the aboriginal people of the Pacific Northwest (like my tribe! :D ). There's another thread on this forum that suggests a Sweat Lodge instead, which works for me. If they were going to add a group of native peoples from North America with a totem pole, they best pick Chief Seattle or the Haida.