SolInvictus
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 183
Why did they have to scrap them? I keep seeing the Pueblo mentioned as a scrapped civ, but I can't find why they did that.
The Pueblo government found it offensive on religious grounds.
Why did they have to scrap them? I keep seeing the Pueblo mentioned as a scrapped civ, but I can't find why they did that.
Why did they have to scrap them? I keep seeing the Pueblo mentioned as a scrapped civ, but I can't find why they did that.
The Pueblo government found it offensive on religious grounds.
I have it at 5:55:45 or so in the video. For clarity, this is the link I'm relying on when saying "the video."
Which one do I want? None at all, not even the Iroquois. There are a bajillion civs more deserving of a spot in the upcoming BNW rather than a random north american tribe with no influence or whatsoever in shaping the current modern world (note how it is called "tribe" and not "civilization" for a reason). Americanocentrism at its finest.
That being said, my bets are on the Cherokee, since they would fit nicely in the civil war scenario, me thinks, not to mention that they are far more known by the general public than the Navajo, for example.
Well, none are safe from hurricanes
On topic, despite strong arguments for the Cherokee, I still think fireaxis will go for a plains/west tribe. It's just something I see happening.
While the Cherokee are cool, I'm partly concerned that they were an Iroquoian-speaking tribe in a sea of Algonquin tribes. While it's certainly not unusual to repeat the same language group (*cough*Germany, Austria, England, America, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands*cough*cough*), one fun thing about Civ5 is hearing the languages in the game and getting to feel the linguistic diversity. It's why I would prefer an Algonquin leader or a more western leader.
Interesting how your criteria for inclusion is an influence in shaping the modern world. How do you feel about the Celts? Considering that it's an entirely manufactured civ, i don't see how it could have had any more effect on the modern world than Peter Pan.
2 Things i say i response to you.
Firstly, it is foolish to suggest that North American "tribes" (in the same way that Rome or greece were "tribal" in some cases) haven't had an impact on modern North America.
Secondly, this isn't a game about modern history it's about the passage through time. Each and every era is as important as the next, so significant powers be they international or regional are just as important in North America in the year 1000 as they are in Europe in the 1800's.
As a final note, i recommend reading some work of Timothy Pauketat and Linda Cordell. There are some amazing civilizations in North America if you care to look for them.
Sorry, but cultural relativism is a bunch of hooey. There were civilizations that were undeniably and objectively far more influential and advanced than others, and to equate tribes with civilizations is a false equivalence as well. Yes, every civ eventually started as a tribe or a group of clans, yet not every single tribe evolved into a civilization of their own. Sedentarism and most importantly, urbanization and a stable structure of goverment and bureaucracy defines and marked the difference between one and another. The only native american tribe that remotely approach these requisites were the Iroquois, and still, they were more or less as cohesive and relevant as the Gauls.
At least we agree on something then!I feel equally bad, to be honest. They were yet another terrible choice also based on nationalistic ego-pandering. The criteria for picking civs in this game showed quite a lot of all around historical ignorance, yes.
Oh, sure. You Americans are all now speaking languages derived from Native North American tribes now, following their code of laws, enjoying the marvels of their artistic and scientific works and practicing their religion en masse, yes.
Sorry, but cultural relativism is a bunch of hooey. There were civilizations that were undeniably and objectively far more influential and advanced than others, and to equate tribes with civilizations is a false equivalence as well. Yes, every civ eventually started as a tribe or a group of clans, yet not every single tribe evolved into a civilization of their own. Sedentarism and most importantly, urbanization and a stable structure of goverment and bureaucracy defines and marked the difference between one and another. The only native american tribe that remotely approach these requisites were the Iroquois, and still, they were more or less as cohesive and relevant as the Gauls.
Oh, I concur with you, this game is about history afterall, not "modern day conflicts 101". That is why leaving some far more relevant civs for their region and timeframe such as the Summer, the Khmer or the Ashanti in favour of a semi-nomadic tribesmen with nothing that resembled a state, diplomacy or urban centers (some of the aspects that this game focuses about) strikes me as erroneous.
I think mods need to close this thread soon.
it's becoming Israel-like troll-bait very quickly.
Culturally, there hasn't been any kind of absorbtion, but there's certainly an argument for the significant levels (among some of the population not all) of modern american xenophobia being rooted in the early attitude and treatment of native americans.
I agreed with most everything you said except that point. Culturally the various First Nations have had an impact across NA. (Im sure its the same for SA, but I don't personally have experience with regards to that)
Lets start with the linguistic legacy. States, cities, counties, mountains, rivers, and valleys across NA take their names from the various languages of the Amerindians. I assure you, Mississippi and Potomac are not Anglo/Germanic words. Perhaps not the largest contribution in world history, but it was asserted earlier that "we Americans" don't commonly speak native words/languages. Oh, and the use of Native languages by the US as code in WW2 shouldn't be forgotten.
The Amerindian cultural/culinary legacy in some case reaches across the modern world. Lacrosse anyone? Corn, potatoes, squash, tomatoes, blueberries, peanuts, and tobacco were all cultivated by First Nation peoples and then exchanged during trade, revolutionizing cuisine, and economies, around the world. And then there's the regional influences that, while not international in scope, have helped shape cultural and artistic identities around NA. For example: the Southwest still relies heavily on Native art styles and motifs in everything from architecture to their state flags.
Indeed. Honestly, who can imagine a world devoid of pizza?The Amerindian cultural/culinary legacy in some case reaches across the modern world. Lacrosse anyone? Corn, potatoes, squash, tomatoes, blueberries, peanuts, and tobacco were all cultivated by First Nation peoples and then exchanged during trade, revolutionizing cuisine, and economies, around the world. And then there's the regional influences that, while not international in scope, have helped shape cultural and artistic identities around NA. For example: the Southwest still relies heavily on Native art styles and motifs in everything from architecture to their state flags.
Turn back, folks. It's not too late.