The Lost Civilization

Just wanted to say that I typoed the post that you quoted from me earlier. I really should proofread what I write more

I'm sure that their history of interaction with Euro-Americans is rife with exploitation and lies. I can see where they would be mistrustful of the intentions of an entertainment industry corporation which professes to educate. I doubt they care a whit about how educated we are about their culture. Prohibiting their members from participating in the project is a small measure they can take to preserve one of the few things that hasn't been taken from them. I don't hold it against them at all.

Gucumatz said:

Just wanted to say that I typoed the post that you quoted from me earlier. I really should proofread what I write more

Click to expand...

I didn't see no typo... Or maybe I'm just sleepy.

Eagle Pursuit said:

I'm sure that their history of interaction with Euro-Americans is rife with exploitation and lies. I can see where they would be mistrustful of the intentions of an entertainment industry corporation which professes to educate. I doubt they care a whit about how educated we are about their culture. Prohibiting their members from participating in the project is a small measure they can take to preserve one of the few things that hasn't been taken from them. I don't hold it against them at all.

Click to expand...

Very good points.

Anyhow, now that you bring that up, I'm wondering - did the Firaxis devs say that the Pueblo council actively prohibited (or strongly discouraged) members of their tribe from participating in the project, or did the Pueblo just strongly state to Firaxis they didn't want to be portrayed in the game, or what? As in exactly what did the Pueblo people communicate to Firaxis? I didn't see the first couple of minutes of the PAX so I missed that.

I don't think we were told at Pax that they prohibited people from being part of the project. I don't think we heard half the stuff that's been speculated on in this thread to be honest.

There is a saying I was always taught, "Spekulier nicht über Spekulatius" which roughly translates to "Don't Speculate about things that aren't your design" since you can't possibly know what went on behind them.

I believe Firaxis tried to hire a member of the tribe and none volunteered. Upon further investigation they found that the tribal council had advised the members that no one should work with Firaxis on the project. Firaxis attempted to sway their opinion, but to no effect.

I don't think the council explicitly forbade it, but they used their influence to dissuade anyone from doing the voice work.

I just don't see that as possible. There are many Pueblos [And I mean towns and reservations in this case - think a couple dozen still to this day, not all of them are in Arizona either, some in Colorado and I think even 2 are in Mexico], the council's influence doesn't extend over all of them. Many of them are quite different from one another historically, culturally and linguistically

cybrxkhan said:

It could have occurred to the Pueblo that the game would have been a medium to share a bastardized version of their history and spread a mockery of their story.

I'm not trying to flame you or anything, but I'm just saying that that's how the Pueblo could have seen it. It might be obvious to us that video games are great for learning, but it might be obvious to them that video games are just another medium for bastardizing native american cultures.

Or maybe indeed as you say they just have no interest in sharing. Who knows.

Click to expand...

Is it obvious to us that video games (like this one) are great for learning? It may be good inspiration to go out and learn more. But as a learning tool itself the civilization series is horrible. For European history perhaps it has some credence, but it shoves in the Teutons and Holy Roman Empire and calls them "German", it completely made up a civ called "the celts", mostly taking from ancient Britons and the list goes on.

For the civs like Germany, the formula at least fits for the leader and name; a nation with borders seeking victory through culture, science, diplomacy or warfare. This is completely blown out of the water if you look back passed the long 19th century Europe, and passed the 20th century most of the rest of the world. The fundamental values that define a civilisation are modelled on north-western Europe in the 19th century, particularly victorian england.

For civs like the Aztecs it starts to break down further. For the large part we see them as a "state", but despite applying them like one to this game, the developers didn't actually differentiate between what was aztec and what was not. One of their city names is Tlaxcala: a people never conquered by the Aztecs and in fact in a perpetual state of war with them. Tenochtitlan was abandoned as a city after its days of eminence (before the rise of the aztecs) yet it also made their city list, as did Tiwanaku in the incas despite a similar situation. So even when these principles that do not apply to native american peoples are applied to them, they are not applied properly.

So then to Puebloan people, people who had developed entirely independently of the rest of the world for thousands of years, this just doesn't make sense. And having lost their land and economy, having lost their identity to homogenised ideals of "native americans" in headresses and teepees they then find a company wanting to change their history by treating them with a criteria based on western ideals of civilization and playing them against the rest of the world. On top of that, they are told this is "educational". If i was pueblo, i'm sure i'd be pretty cheesed off if some americans came down here and told me they wanted to play with my culture too.

As much as i love civ v, i can appreciate that as far as history is concerned this game is horrible. The civilopedia provides some saving grace for those who go as far as to browse it, but it's still not great. I'm hoping for Civ 6 they come up with some solutions that don't homogenise world cultures into 1 format of state, but i can understand how difficult this may be, so i can accept compromise for the sake of gameplay.

@True Candyman: Good point, though I was referring to the posters who were discussing whether Civ was a good education tool or not.

Still, I think to many gamers who aren't knowledgeable about history, Civilization, while not the best tool for learning, can be sort of like a gateway drug. You know about the "Civ" from the game. You want to learn more about it. You read a wikipedia page, look it up in a book, something, and you learn more. That's what I think is meant by Civ as an education tool - or, at least, that's how it worked for me. Heck, I don't think I'd be trying to major in History right now if it weren't for the Civ series. Before I got Civ3 (the first civ game I played), I was sort of a generalist nerd, enjoying learning things from different fields. After I became obsessed with Civ3, I was more interested in the histories and cultures presented in that game.

However, you do bring good points nevertheless. The non-European civs are often portrayed through a Eurocentric lens - look at how the Zulu were the only African civ until Civ 4, indicating a complete disregard for an entire continent's history. And even then, stereotypes remain for both European and non-European civs - the Samurai are depicted as the martial artist swordsmen as pop culture likes to see them, even though historically they were usually mounted, preferring bow and arrow; the Chinese are depicted as a good military civ, even though they have had great achievements in the arts, sciences, agriculture, among other things; and the Scandinavians (before Sweden in G&K) are nothing but Vikings.

I suppose even looking at it from a non-Pueblo perspective, things can look rather puzzling at best and insulting at worst. Still, I can't say that Civ isn't a good learning tool - I like to think of it like Pre-K for history. It is in no way going to teach you the Calculus of history, but it's a good way to start, in my opinion, at least from personal experience.

And after all, it s a game; especially in Civ 5, they strive to make the civs distinct, hence the focus on certain aspects of a given society and the non-representation of others.

There's only a few places where they can differentiate Civs - UU, the second unique thing, UA, the leaderhead, the civ icon, color scheme, and city list and city art style.

Firaxis only stated that they learned that the Pueblo Council found it very offensive to include Pope in a video game. They never stated anything about the Council telling people not to work with them, or that they didn't want to be included in the game. All that was said is that they learned it was Pope's inclusion was offensive and scrapped the leader. No other details were given.

cybrxkhan said:

Still, I think to many gamers who aren't knowledgeable about history, Civilization, while not the best tool for learning, can be sort of like a gateway drug. You know about the "Civ" from the game. You want to learn more about it. You read a wikipedia page, look it up in a book, something, and you learn more. That's what I think is meant by Civ as an education tool - or, at least, that's how it worked for me. Heck, I don't think I'd be trying to major in History right now if it weren't for the Civ series. Before I got Civ3 (the first civ game I played), I was sort of a generalist nerd, enjoying learning things from different fields. After I became obsessed with Civ3, I was more interested in the histories and cultures presented in that game.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's really not so much about teaching about history per se but getting someone interested in something historical. Someone thinks a civ or unit is cool, they maybe go read an article on wikipedia, they maybe then go do some actual research. The civ series does this very well.

I find all the hand-wringingly PCness of Firaxis' selections to be most frustrating. I think they should include whatever cultures and historical individuals they want. If they do it in a sensitive, non-stereotyped way, then I don't think they should take any notice of what a culture says about it.

OK, You're probably immediately set up against me from that paragraph, but consider this: What if there were a culture who found the whole notion of video games themselves repugnant? You wouldn't take account of their wishes would you? What if they found the whole concept of representing human beings on a flickering screen to be evil? Would you never release another game with people in?

OK, if you think that's ridiculous and not like the first example, then is the difference the fact that you want to represent a particular culture in the game? Does a culture really have a say in how they are represented? A culture, let us not forget, is not a race. There could be one race in a region split into two distinct cultures; one of them thinks it's evil if there is a game about civs and you're not in it, and the other thinks it's evil if there is a civ game and you are in it. How would you please these cultures then?

The Pueblo asked them not to feature one of their most important spiritual leaders, and Firaxis complied.

That's not "hand-wringing PCness", that's just being respectful.

graspee said:

I find all the hand-wringingly PCness of Firaxis' selections to be most frustrating. I think they should include whatever cultures and historical individuals they want. If they do it in a sensitive, non-stereotyped way, then I don't think they should take any notice of what a culture says about it.

OK, You're probably immediately set up against me from that paragraph, but consider this: What if there were a culture who found the whole notion of video games themselves repugnant? You wouldn't take account of their wishes would you? What if they found the whole concept of representing human beings on a flickering screen to be evil? Would you never release another game with people in?

OK, if you think that's ridiculous and not like the first example, then is the difference the fact that you want to represent a particular culture in the game? Does a culture really have a say in how they are represented? A culture, let us not forget, is not a race. There could be one race in a region split into two distinct cultures; one of them thinks it's evil if there is a game about civs and you're not in it, and the other thinks it's evil if there is a civ game and you are in it. How would you please these cultures then?

Click to expand...

Note that the Pueblo aren't asking that there not be a video game at all. They just don't want themselves portrayed in a particular manner. They're not asking that we change the entire mechanics of the game to suit their desires, they're talking about one mere civilization - and, perhaps, as some posters suggested, maybe even just a highly revered leader of said civilization. To compare this to them forcing us to not release a video game is ludicrous.

I'm guessing Firaxis received the blessing of the Mohawks and other Iroquoian groups. They may run into this issue with other Amerindian groups, like the Mapuche (who were angry at Microsoft for using their language in a program).

Guandao said:

I'm guessing Firaxis received the blessing of the Mohawks and other Iroquoian groups. They may run into this issue with other Amerindian groups, like the Mapuche (who were angry at Microsoft for using their language in a program).

Click to expand...

Maybe not, the Iroquois have a great deal more written about them and are far more integrated into western society than the Pueblo. I wouldn't be surprised if they could find dozens of voice actors for the iroquois who were more than happy to comply.

Cyanfunk said:

The Pueblo asked them not to feature one of their most important spiritual leaders, and Firaxis complied.

That's not "hand-wringing PCness", that's just being respectful.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And really everyone who wrote to the Pueblo council has the utmost respect for the decision. We aren't the silly "anti-PC" people that seem to rant and rave everywhere.

It deeply saddens me to no end that Popé's descendants wouldn't allow his legacy to be shared to the masses through modern fine art.......

Yeah- this decision makes sense (and I would regard having the Pueblo as I regard having the Celts or Huns- with disdain). However, I want Stalin back. He was an awful dick, but I can just imagine the leaderscreen for Stalin, and playing against him... much more fun than Civ5 Cathy (Civ4 Cathy, however, was hilarious...)

graspee said:

I find all the hand-wringingly PCness of Firaxis' selections to be most frustrating. I think they should include whatever cultures and historical individuals they want. If they do it in a sensitive, non-stereotyped way, then I don't think they should take any notice of what a culture says about it.

OK, You're probably immediately set up against me from that paragraph, but consider this: What if there were a culture who found the whole notion of video games themselves repugnant? You wouldn't take account of their wishes would you? What if they found the whole concept of representing human beings on a flickering screen to be evil? Would you never release another game with people in?

OK, if you think that's ridiculous and not like the first example, then is the difference the fact that you want to represent a particular culture in the game? Does a culture really have a say in how they are represented? A culture, let us not forget, is not a race. There could be one race in a region split into two distinct cultures; one of them thinks it's evil if there is a game about civs and you're not in it, and the other thinks it's evil if there is a civ game and you are in it. How would you please these cultures then?

Click to expand...

I had to change the contrast on my screen, otherwise I couldn't read the post above, it is so white.

Moderator Action: we do not allow personal attack on this forum
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889