Civ IV: Colonization

no, you just can't see quebec as an independent nation.

TheLastOne36 said:

Again Silesia doesn't have independence, Ossetia doesn't, niether does Tibet or the Mayans, or the lapp, or the zulu or the australian aboriginees or abkhazia, or chechnya, and i could go on for quite a while... if my house declared independence from Poland, and succeeded would that be counted as a Political Nation?

Click to expand...

Don't try, it's not going to work. But I'm glad to see a European "getting it". I try to stay out of Quebec discussions where people outside of Quebec are participating because they make my blood boil. But anyway, I like your comments. A nation is a nation. Thanks.

Oh I want to add that I also am rather displeased by the apparent absence of Portugal.

TheLastOne36 said:

no, you just can't see quebec as an independent nation.

Click to expand...

Because they're not! Are you trying to explain to me the political nature of my own country now? If you don't know squat about how things actually work here, then you shouldn't be commenting. Like I mentioned, Quebec is no different than one of your own Voivodeships are, or the US state of California, or the Dutch province of Holland. They are not nor ever have been an independent nation. A cultural nation yes, but independant politically no.

And as I have mentioned on several occasions now, this is a very sensitive issue in this country and I'm really beginning to resent you dragging this out. Perhaps I should return the favour by reminding you of your days as a Soviet puppet, or your complete failure to put up any sort of fight against Hitler. You've already brought in someone from Quebec on this issue which can only mean that this will become yet another thread that becomes bogged down in political discussion, when it's supposed to be about a game. Show enough discretion and common sense to drop the subject. Or am I going to have to put you on my ignore list as well?

Ok I've read further back in the thread now.

New France becoming Quebec in Colonization? Well, it would make sense in the context of the game if New France still existed at the end when time for independence came, they would become independent from France and could become Quebec. In reality, well, everybody in Quebec except the anglophones of Montreal (among which I live, by the way) and maybe some areas close to Ontario and the US, call themselves Quebecois first and foremost. I have to admit that when I see a French person from France or any foreigner and they call me a "Canadian" it doesn't sound quite right. It's not that I don't like Canada, I actually think it's one of the best places to live on Earth, but deep inside, I just can't feel "it" when I'm called a Canadian. Even the federalist "pure wool" Quebecois, those who want to remain in Canada, will still call themselves Quebecois first. Myself? I don't know, I'm still on the fence, if there was a referendum on our independence tomorrow, I don't know what I'd vote. Probably "Yes", or not vote at all. I don't think I would go and vote no. I don't believe in the separation of "political" and "cultural" nation. Maybe the recent event of the government recognizing the nation of Quebec is seen as a joke in many places in the country. I expect something from this resolution because I believe the word nation to be strong. If it turns out to be a real joke, then yeah, I'll vote Yes next time.

An interesting random fact to add is probably that "Canada" and "Canadien" used to refer to the French people of North america before, but that has quite changed since then hasn't it.

Edit: Well I agree that it should probably be dropped. But no hard feelings for me. It is certainly sensitive, but I'm not easily offended, hehe.

SimonL said:

An interesting random fact to add is probably that "Canada" and "Canadien" used to refer to the French people of North america before, but that has quite changed since then hasn't it.

Click to expand...

What, you've never seen any of those Heritage Moments on CBC? Canada comes from the Indian word Kanata, which is Mohawk I believe, meaning village. And good to see you're not one of those fanatical Quebecois. I have no issue with Quebec myself, in fact I usually quite like anyone I meet from there. Nor do I object to their efforts at keeping the French culture alive. In fact I respect it. But I don't want them to heading off on their own. We all belong in this country together.

Willem said:

What, you've never seen any of those Heritage Moments on CBC? Canada comes from the Indian word Kanata, which is Mohawk I believe, meaning village.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's what the word actually means. But when it started being used to designate a bunch of people, it was the "Canadiens francais".

Edit to your Edit: Cheers. Actually you're sort of right in that I think Jacques Cartier, in a few of his first manuscripts, used "Canadiens" to refer to the Iroquois of the colonies. Then for a long time Canadiens were the french inhabitants of Upper and Lower Canada. Then all inhabitants of these two became Canadiens. That's why the historical "hockey team of Frenchies" was called the Montreal Canadiens

SimonL said:

But when it started being used to designate a bunch of people, it was the "Canadiens francais".

Click to expand...

Looking at this map, I can see why. The English didn't have much of a presence in what is now Canada at first, it was all French territory.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/New-France1750.png

I'm actually surprised by this, I had thought that the English always had control of Newfoundland and what is now Southern Ontario. And of course Hudson's Bay.

I remember this map from my far away history classes, that's how it was indeed, but it's misleading in a way, since at its height all of this "New France" territory held around 20,000 to 30,000 French subjets... Whereas the much smaller British territory had hundreds of thousands. A lot of the large French territory was due to French alliances with the natives.

Anyway, I'll be away for a couple of days so I can't answer if anyone starts an off-topic debate with a quote of mine! Probably a good thing.

French will always take a backseat in CAnada. IN Sudbury its half french. Yet A worker will come down the cage and speak the new orders from surface only in french if Im working with another french guy in the drift. What a piss off I need to ask for translater to do my job(drill holes)

They like to think they have the right to their language on the job but I speak the language of the person who gave me the job.

Its illigel to talk on the two way in French in ONtario. All transmissions have to be in english. SOme resent that so go around using french all day. What lil buggers

Anyway I to am gone for another few weeks. Back to work with frenchie as a matter a fact. Hmm was I too rude? Ah well, 'Mine' as well get the civfan send off lol

TheLastOne36 said:

no, you just can't see quebec as an independent nation.

Click to expand...

I think you are confusing the issue a little bit. First of all, Willem understands the issues probably better than you do even as someone who went to school in Canada, just like you understand Polish nationalities/ethnicities much better than I do even though I was at the University of Lodz for a year studying Polish language. I would never dream of questioning whether Silesian is a nationality or not, so I don't think you should get involved directly in deciding whether Quebecois is an ethnicity or a nationality or simply the name for people who are of French extraction but live in Canada and want indepedence from the rest of Canada because they do not share the culture thereof. I think Willem and Simon have more right to pronounce on it than you do.

What you are doing is mistaking ethnic nations (including the Silesians, who you would say are a nation...I would say ethnicity to remove all doubt about what you are talking; nationhood in my mind as a political scientist means you need a political unit for it to be so; I think you are translating "narodowosc" as "nationality" where actually IMO as a Polish speaker it should be translated as "ethnicity") for colonies/settlements created by other nations. Quebec is not the same as Ossetia because the Ossetians have an Ossetian ethnicity, whereas it is arguable that "Quebecois" means anything more than "person who comes from Quebec" which is like "Australian" meaning "person who comes from Australia", who might have a secondary ethnicity, e.g. there are a lot of Polish-Australians and Latvian-Australians as well as Anglo-Australians. So in this sense Quebecois could just be seen as Franco-Canadians, which would understate the case for separatism since are concentrated geographically and hence could be indepedent if they so chose. But that is not the same as being of, say, Ojibwa ethnicity, which is closer to being Silesian than being Quebecois is.

It might help if you understand that "nationality" in English does not map onto "narodowosc" in Polish. Nationality can be much broader than simple ethnicity, and because the ethnic divisions in Europe are radically different from those in North America, it is not true that being Quebecois is equal in those terms to being Silesian. Understanding it my way, Quebecois are of French ethnicity, and the reason they want to separate off from the rest of Canada is that they have a radically different cultural heritage - and yes, ethnicity - from the English Canadians. The only real "ethnicities" in North America are either immigrants with a sense of their mother culture or Native Americans/First Nations; European nationalities/ethnicities, including Silesians and Ossetians are more like the latter than the former, which include Quebecois. So there is no parallel between you as a Silesian and Simon as a Quebecois, because the Quebecois are not indigenous to that region.

All in all I have to say I am neutral on the point of whether Quebec should be independent, and although I had a cousin at the University of Montreal (she's now living in the Netherlands) I'm not really qualified to pass judgement. So long as cultural autonomy is respected, I'm not sure I fully agree with Quebec separatists, but it wouldn't bother me if they did decide to secede, as long as the state was economically viable without massive aid programmes needed to bankroll it.

@Willem - it's not very fair to get at him over the USSR or Hitler or whatever. Both issues are well in the past and all nations have their ups and downs. Polish airmen fought tooth and nail for their country as part of the British armed forces, and Hitler preyed on Poland because of relative strengths and weaknesses (you could accuse the French more of capitulating to him than the Polish). As for the USSR, like the Baltic States they had no choice but to join the Soviet bloc after the war because of the might of Russia and the way in which it was liberated, as well as cultural and geopolitical factors. Poland was one of the more liberal Sovietised states and started the ball rolling towards the end of the Cold War ten years before it actually came to an end. So don't drag Last One's own nationality/ethnicity into it.

Willem said:

Because they're not! Are you trying to explain to me the political nature of my own country now? If you don't know squat about how things actually work here, then you shouldn't be commenting. Like I mentioned, Quebec is no different than one of your own Voivodeships are, or the US state of California, or the Dutch province of Holland. They are not nor ever have been an independent nation. A cultural nation yes, but independant politically no.
I'm not going to argue that a Cultural Nation can't be a Political nation as you are pointing out because it is obviously wrong.
And as I have mentioned on several occasions now, this is a very sensitive issue in this country and I'm really beginning to resent you dragging this out. Perhaps I should return the favour by reminding you of your days as a Soviet puppet, or your complete failure to put up any sort of fight against Hitler. You've already brought in someone from Quebec on this issue which can only mean that this will become yet another thread that becomes bogged down in political discussion, when it's supposed to be about a game. Show enough discretion and common sense to drop the subject. Or am I going to have to put you on my ignore list as well?
I know it's sensitive, and i see that Emotion is getting in the way of actual facts, but all i'm saying is that Quebec should be an independent nation in the Game Colonization when france declares it "a colony" as should America or Canada be. And please don't comment on the Soviet puppet and Hitler when you obviously don't know a thing about Poland. For example, we were doing fine on our german front until the Soviets backstabbed us and attacked us in our other front. And don't say i don't know a thing about Canada, as i do, i had my education in here, and i've lived here from about half of my life. I still consider Canada to be my second home, and i have family in Canada.

The topic doesn't need to be dropped as it is about Colonization, and not about politics. Besides you'd agree with me that In real life, that if Britain never conquered Acadia and Quebec, they'd probably be independent nations by now.

Click to expand...

ten chars....

Crowqueen said:

I think you are confusing the issue a little bit. First of all, Willem understands the issues probably better than you do even as someone who went to school in Canada, just like you understand Polish nationalities/ethnicities much better than I do even though I was at the University of Lodz for a year studying Polish language. I would never dream of questioning whether Silesian is a nationality or not, so I don't think you should get involved directly in deciding whether Quebecois is an ethnicity or a nationality or simply the name for people who are of French extraction but live in Canada and want indepedence from the rest of Canada because they do not share the culture thereof. I think Willem and Simon have more right to pronounce on it than you do.I understand this part, Silesia is a nation, (although it is really close culturally to Poland that it doesn't really matter anyway)

What you are doing is mistaking ethnic nations (including the Silesians, who you would say are a nation...I would say ethnicity to remove all doubt about what you are talking; nationhood in my mind as a political scientist means you need a political unit for it to be so; I think you are translating "narodowosc" as "nationality" where actually IMO as a Polish speaker it should be translated as "ethnicity") for colonies/settlements created by other nations. Quebec is not the same as Ossetia because the Ossetians have an Ossetian ethnicity, whereas it is arguable that "Quebecois" means anything more than "person who comes from Quebec" which is like "Australian" meaning "person who comes from Australia", who might have a secondary ethnicity, e.g. there are a lot of Polish-Australians and Latvian-Australians as well as Anglo-Australians. So in this sense Quebecois could just be seen as Franco-Canadians, which would understate the case for separatism since are concentrated geographically and hence could be indepedent if they so chose. But that is not the same as being of, say, Ojibwa ethnicity, which is closer to being Silesian than being Quebecois is.
for the language part, remember i speak english as well. i also agree that it should translate to ethnicity. I also agree with you on the second part, as the Quebecois or French Canadians are nothing more then that. French Canadians..

Click to expand...

Also unrelated but you said you went to the university of lodz, but why? aren't there better universities in England?

TheLastOne36 said:

...but all i'm saying is that Quebec should be an independent nation in the Game Colonization when france declares it "a colony" as should America or Canada be

Click to expand...

Your comments had nothing to do with the game but were directed at the current political situation here in Canada. And just as I know nothing about Poland, you obviously know nothing about the political reality here in this country. You may have lived here for awhile but it seems plain to me that you didn't get to understand the country all that well, especially the issues between the French and the English. I'm guessing you spent most of your time in Quebec and didn't see much of the other side of the story.

Willem said:

Your comments had nothing to do with the game but were directed at the current political situation here in Canada. And just as I know nothing about Poland, you obviously know nothing about the political reality here in this country. You may have lived here for awhile but it seems plain to me that you didn't get to understand the country all that well, especially the issues between the French and the English. I'm guessing you spent most of your time in Quebec and didn't see much of the other side of the story.

Click to expand...

Actually i lived in Toronto, then ottawa for 3 years then Toronto again

I only had political comments because you made me go there, to continue the discussion.

TheLastOne36 said:

I only had political comments because you made me go there, to continue the discussion.

Click to expand...

Man, you are so full of it.

Originally Posted by Willem
In the context of the game sure, but please don't refer to the real Quebec as a nation, as you seem to have been doing in your first post. It's not, nor ever has been one, as much as some of the Quebecois would like things to be otherwise.

Click to expand...

Interesting, because when i lived and had my education in canada, it was always taught that Quebecois were a different people then the canadians, same with the acadians.

Click to expand...

You were the one who jumped in. It seems to me that all you're doing is trolling.

I'm back. I may want to add that it's hard to pinpoint Quebec nationalism only on cultural issues. I, for one, just don't like the way the federation works in Canada. And I prefer to imagine a country where the different levels of government aren't trying to decide things that are happening 4000 kilometers apart. That is, I don't think geographically huge countries with an omnipresent high-level government is a good idea. But these are personal political opinions that don't have anything to do with me being franco-canadian-quebecois-of-French-but-not-so-much origin.

I had a weird background myself, I mean, I'm a pure wool Quebecois born and raised in the boonies in the middle of people like me, but I now live in Montreal in the middle of anglophones and I studied at McGill (anglophone university). In the end though, it's hard to imagine, for most people, how it is to be 6 millions of francophones in the middle of 350 millions of anglophones, and to be trying to keep your culture alive, at the same time seeing a lot of immigrants to Quebec choosing English instead of French, which is understandable considering the situation, especially if they were not aware of languages in Canada to begin with. So yes, it can appear to be paranoia, not too sure it is. Quebecois are certainly constantly under pressure to redefine their identity.

SimonL said:

Quebecois are certainly constantly under pressure to redefine their identity.

Click to expand...

Ah, so Celine Dion was only a temporary experiment then. Good.

Colonization was one of my favorite games - right up there with Civ, so I'm thrilled to hear this is coming out and can't wait to see it.

I'm not sure why people are so juiced over Civ V (if it's in the works). Of course it'd be nice to have such a thing but Civ IV isn't really that old and is pretty robust. I'm not much for mods but I'm digging FFH lately and find it almost more fun than vanilla. It's considerably more than just a mod.

But then, one of the other titles of yesteryear that I miss a lot is MoM (Masters of Magic), which is one reason that I think I like FFH so much, it's somewhat MoM-like.

If someone were to revive MoM and other greats of old like X-COM, my PC gaming life would be so much sweeter. I could care less about yet more FPS and RTS. It's crushing that Bethesda is going to ruin Fallout and turn it into a FPS style. Hopefully JA3 will be worthy.

Stardock is supposed to be working on a fantasy flavored turn based MoM-like game that'll probably end up being decent but I'm sure it's a ways off.

Rambling, but my point is that it's not so bad to see older hits revived and redone when a lot of them are better "PC Games" (IMO) in concept and execution than a lot of what comes out these days (mostly yet more RTS and FPS repetition).

This thread is so badly derailed.

I still don't quite get why it's called -Civ4- Colonization. Do you think maybe it works as an expansion? I mean, in that it has an affect on Civ4.
I figure maybe it upgrades the graphics a bit. I'm not used to expansion packs doing that, though (Or wait, did Diablo 2's expansion add in 800x600 as a resolution or was that a D2 patch?)