Should the Pueblo be in Civ V?

There had been some controversy in Firaxis over the inclusion of the Pueblo.

Do you think the Pueblo should be in the game? If so, who would its leader, UA, UU, and second UU/UB/UI be?

Me, I am neutral.

Admittedly, I don't know much about their history except that they briefly resisted the Spanish in New Mexico. What have they done that would warrant their addition? I could think of dozens of civs (Native Americans ones included) that I think are more noteworthy/deserving than the Pueblo.

If the Pueblo were against it so much that Firaxis opted not to go down that road, then it's probably best that the Pueblo are not a civ.

Difficult question. I'm guessing you mean do you think the pueblo should be in considering their request for the removal of Pope. Based on the information i have, yes the pueblo should be in. But if this request extended beyond pope to the pueblo people as a whole, then no it shouldn't.

Eagle Pursuit said:

If the Pueblo were against it so much that Firaxis opted not to go down that road, then it's probably best that the Pueblo are not a civ.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.


The poll isn't exactly clear as to whether we want the Pueblo as a civ, or whether we agree with Firaxis' decision or not.

If the Pueblo don't want to be in, then they shouldn't be in. Frankly, I think not wanting to be in means they don't deserve to be in.

Everyone's happy.

Sorry, I meant to say "Should the Pueblo be in Civilization V?"

Even then, it is intentionally vague for those who want the Pueblo be in, as well as those who believe that Firaxis should put the Pueblo in.

Users can also feel free to object to having the Pueblo be in Civ V (either by popular demand or by Firaxis).

Finally, users can be neutral about it, not minding if the Pueblo are in or not.

El Conquistador said:

Admittedly, I don't know much about their history except that they briefly resisted the Spanish in New Mexico. What have they done that would warrant their addition? I could think of dozens of civs (Native Americans ones included) that I think are more noteworthy/deserving than the Pueblo.

Click to expand...

Frankly, who? They are probably the most deserving in the continental US (Over 1,000 years of nearly continuous existence from the Anasazi to the Pueblo to the Hohokam, Pima, etc.)

In Pre-Colombian times they were the conduit of power between Mesoamerica and the continental US and set up what one could call "colonies" for tribute, broader trade, and expansion. Hundreds and hundreds of miles of canals run across the southwest established by the Pueblo/Anasazi/Hohokam/Mogollan (whatever you want to call them) and still feed people even to this day despite being hundreds of years old. American farmers owe most of their development to the Pueblo/Hohokam/Anasazi canal system in the region and cities like Phoenix would probably never have grown up without them. The CAP project that provides for most of Arizona and large parts of Arizona runs over many canals from the Pueblo/Anasazi/Hohokam, but is a less efficient version of the canal system set up over 1,000 years ago.

The Pueblo are definitely a deserving civilization of getting in
============

Now whether they get it or not I think is still not certain. Pax was not clear if they merely scrapped Popey, or if they scrapped the whole civ. Popey was a medicine man and the leader who re-unified the Puebloan tribes. He was a spiritual leader in his times, its little surprise that there would be an offense at including him. But there are non-spiritual Caciques who were in charge of different Pueblos over history that the council could have suggested that Firaxis use instead. Its still iffy because we don't have a clear picture. Some of us at the 2K boards wrote the council partially to find out some more information on the situation.

I personally would much rather see their predecessors the Anasazi. There are a number of issues with them as well however (nobody speaks Anasazi so the Pueblo language would be their default, and the Pueblo people's problem with the game wasn't just Pope but the portrayal of any deceased person).

Saying the Pueblo = Anasazi is like saying Rome = Greece... There's geographic and cultural similarities, but they are two entirely different peoples none-the-less.

A fictional leader is really the only way to get around the Pueblo controversy and I believe that this would be a first for Civ.

P.S. UA = Ascension! (a unique religious winning condition that only the Anasazi can complete)

Bobert13 said:

I personally would much rather see their predecessors the Anasazi. There are a number of issues with them as well however (nobody speaks Anasazi so the Pueblo language would be their default, and the Pueblo people's problem with the game wasn't just Pope but the portrayal of any deceased person).

Saying the Pueblo = Anasazi is like saying Rome = Greece... There's geographic and cultural similarities, but they are two entirely different peoples none-the-less.

A fictional leader is really the only way to get around the Pueblo controversy and I believe that this would be a first for Civ.

P.S. UA = Ascension! (a unique religious winning condition that only the Anasazi can complete)

Click to expand...

There's a great deal of evidence that suggests the Pueblo people are in fact the descendants of the Anasazi people. Somewhat of a consensus in archaeology and anthropology from what i understand.

There is no need to resort to a fictional leader. And as True-Candyman says, the Pueblo are the same people. Heres a little fact for you all, the Anasazi never existed. Its a term made up by western anthropologists using a bastardization of Navajo words to describe the people. Sort of silly if you consider with whenever more modern anthropologists and archaeologists research the "Anasazi", Pueblo, Hohokam, Pima, etc. nowadays its pretty clear they were the same people.

The 'Anasazi' state was an empire though at one point, each Pueblo had to pay tribute, resources, and perform ceremonies at Chaco Canyon [The capital of the ancient tributary empire of the Pueblo]

True_Candyman said:

There's a great deal of evidence that suggests the Pueblo people are in fact the descendants of the Anasazi people. Somewhat of a consensus in archaeology and anthropology from what i understand.

Click to expand...

An overwhelming majority of the people living in modern day Mexico are the descendants of the Mayans. That doesn't make Mexico the Mayan Empire though.

Gucumatz said:

There is no need to resort to a fictional leader. And as True-Candyman says, the Pueblo are the same people. Heres a little fact for you all, the Anasazi never existed. Its a term made up by western anthropologists using a bastardization of Navajo words to describe the people. Sort of silly if you consider with whenever more modern anthropologists and archaeologists research the "Anasazi", Pueblo, Hohokam, Pima, etc. nowadays its pretty clear they were the same people.

The 'Anasazi' state was an empire though at one point, each Pueblo had to pay tribute, resources, and perform ceremonies at Chaco Canyon [The capital of the ancient tributary empire of the Pueblo]

Click to expand...

The Pueblo are strongly against the portrayal of any deceased person. Without a fictional leader, your only option would be a still living leader. And should that leader ever die, he would need to be removed/replaced. I don't see any other real way around this part of their heritage.

The Anasazi state, as you describe it, was once a powerful empire (comparatively) that inexplicably collapsed. The Pueblo/Hopi story of this collapse is that the "Old Ones" ascended to the heavens to commune with the star people. Modern archaeology and such does have clues pointing to infighting/raiding from neighboring tribes as well as some ecological failure of their food source(s).

While I agree that the tribes that occupied the area at the time of our initial exploration of it are most certainly descendants of the Anasazi/Old Ones or their neighboring vassal tribes, that doesn't make them the Anasazi Empire, nor do I feel that our historical version has any more merit over their mythological version (from a game perspective at least).

Of course it has merit. Look at what we know what their UA was going to be, it was going to be a mix of Anasazi and Pueblo traits. And the Archaeology supports the fact that they are the same people. Its not initial exploration, its the last 30 years of anthropology and archaeology that say so. And don't get me started on the "ecological determinalism" that pervades Native American history. It certainly didn't inexplicably collapse, it evolved. You can sort of compare it to the transition from Mycenaean Greece to Iron Age Greece to Classical Greece.

Similarly the society abandoned its former palace structures, split up into more regional Pueblos [Or for the Greeks, more stratified city states and lost control of the former Minoan/Mycenaean palace structure]. Likewise the Greeks barely had a "direct" memory about their forebearers or a lot of their structure, heck much of Mycenaean Greek still remains untranslated to this day. They were still the same people though and parts of the culture remained from their previous eras (The miles and miles of canals, the Great Houses that were occupied for centuries even after the 'Anasazi collapse', and still shared common religious culture, even if their language began to split up over time.

AriochIV said:

If the Pueblo don't want to be in, then they shouldn't be in. Frankly, I think not wanting to be in means they don't deserve to be in.

Everyone's happy.

Click to expand...

This.

As I understand it the Pueblo were only against Pope being in the game.

Yes, I think they should be in the game to spread knowledge of their culture, but if they are offended by the fact of being in a game, I think Firaxis made the right decsion, both morally and legally.

kingchris20 said:

Yes, I think they should be in the game to spread knowledge of their culture, but if they are offended by the fact of being in a game, I think Firaxis made the right decsion, both morally and legally.

Click to expand...

This sums up my feelings on the matter

bite said:

This sums up my feelings on the matter

Click to expand...

As it does mine. I'd love to see the Pueblo in game, not only for the representation of the Pueblo but to also break the stereotype of North American groups being 'nomadic hunter-gatherers', for lack of a better word.

However, the Pueblo elders don't want to be in the game, and that's fine - I'd actually be more annoyed if Firaxis / 2K didn't listen to them and forged ahead with them as a civ despite it being against the elders' wishes.

People who get offended for being in games deserve to be offended imo. Ofc it's good PR for Firaxis to not upset the tribe, because they might lose a few sales to some tree-huggers if they did.

Now if they had bad traits and/or UUs, then I could understand being upset I guess... Then again were the Finns included with Santa Claus as their leader and Alcoholism as the main trait, I'd rage for a while, then shrug my shoulders and play them anyway, 'cause hey, overcoming obstacles.

So, yes, include anyone on Earth regardless of their opinions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ussCHoQttyQ