[R&F] Article Discussion: Cree Nation Headman says he disapproves of Poundmaker's depiction in RnF

DJ Tanner so you don't think there's a chance that Rise and Fall release will be postponed?
 
Haig said:
DJ Tanner so you don't think there's a chance that Rise and Fall release will be postponed?
Click to expand...

No I do not. The only way I could see was if it was a PR issue. However, unless you are pulling information from these boards or are really tuned into the indigenous people news the story has no legs. If this story mattered, in the public's eye, they wouldn't have gone an entire week with no official statement. Something would have to change significantly for it to be a big enough issue that 2K needed to intervene. A toothless C&D won't do it, it would need to get significant play from the media and that seems very unlikely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reading things like these makes me lose a lot of sympathy for the Cree. It may have been a non-traditional approach to include them without asking for official permission and cooperation from the point of view of the Cree. But threatening with a law suit is not quite a polite thing to do either - especially when they already have some contact now. If there is no legal claim, I hope 2k just sits through it despite some bad PR in this case. Maybe include a very special Cree scenario - but don't change the civ in the main game too much.

Moderator Action: Deleted off topic discussion. Please stay on topic. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In order to get a PR hit, you'd need not only for people to care, but you'd need people to care more about the side of the offended party than the person taking the hit. Considering the nature of what's going on, it doesn't seem like that's happening here: most people who would actually care about this (which is to say, naturally, the Civ developers, publishers, lawyers, and audience; to the Cree, I can't imagine the loss of PR of a random company is all that meaningful) seem to be taking the Civilization side as much as it matters.

Not that I've got much room to complain, since I suppose I'm there too. Civilization always caricatures its participants, and considering that, the Cree were probably one of the most heavily respected groups here -- so it's bizarre to me that they've gone out of their way to make their first impression on much of their audience a negative one. While it is perhaps true that the game itself may pigeonhole civilizations into a eurocentric style of growth, much of that largely boils down to the establishment of compelling game mechanics rather than any inherent attempt to force a cultural narrative; it isn't as though Sumeria is widely recognized for their movement into the Space Age, nor did America play a major role in the formation of early Classical-era government, nor did Genghis Khan ever lead the United Nations to a Diplomatic Victory. While Native American civilizations admittedly tend to follow very different rules from the vast majority of other civilizations, they aren't some alien subculture that is immune to comparison, nor are they some perfect entity that is above the realm of criticism or respectful portrayal relative to any other civilization.

Which is a lot of empty words to say that as long as they have no pressing religious reason to avoid being in the game I don't see why their approval is all that necessary, especially when their portrayal is far better than that of (for example) India under Gandhi or even Spain, and easily a candidate for the best in the game. Certainly no other country is required to give their approval, yet now we may well be stuck with the Iroquois and the Sioux forever since they're more lawyer-friendly.

It's really a pity. Civilization VI ignited my interested in them and in Poundmaker, and they themselves snuffed it out. They were such a great choice that I almost thought they could've been a mainstay, and now I'm almost glad we're never going to see them again.
 
A real question : does the memory of an historical character belong to his "nation", or to the humanity ? It's not like Poundmaker was a secret being that only the Cree's know about its existence. From the moment Poundmaker participated in the grand events of history, didn't his personality shine throughout all actors he participated with.
This whole case is not about Poundmaker being misrepresented or treated harshly (if I remember correctly, the chief even said that they represented in a very positive way). It's about being represented at all, and thus considered as a marketing product. Thus, my question again : does the use of the memory of an historical figure belong to the culture he comes from, or does it belong to humanity ? (You have three hours to respond to this thesis :p)
 
Liufeng said:
does the use of the memory of an historical figure belong to the culture he comes from, or does it belong to humanity ? (You have three hours to respond to this thesis :p)
Click to expand...
I think it does belong to humanity. This means people are free to see figures from different point of views and that there is probably not a single truth for any person in history. Just think of national heroes, that are very much hated upon in some other countries. It's the right of Mongolia to see Genghis as a hero, and the right of Iran to see him as one of histories greatest villains. That doesn't mean I have to agree with one of those, and it certainly doesn't mean that, since Genghis was Mongolian, theirs is the official point of view and others are not allowed to be spread anymore.

For me personally, crossing the line is when you interfere with that. You can always try to educate others and show them your point of view, of course. But claiming to have the sole truth about a part of history and others are always wrong is just too much. Some states and groups do it that way, though (not accusing Mongolia btw).

Spoiler :

@blackbutterfly again, just because X are bad people doesn't make Y good people. I'm not Swiss and neither do I need you to point out their flaws to me that I'm very aware of.
 
Last edited:
Moderator Action: Off topic content removed. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

blackbutterfly said:
On topic: I call on anyone who feels the Cree Nation have been wronged re: Poundmaker to also boycott Rise & Fall, regardless of whether the Cree have a legal standing or not.
Click to expand...
How exactly do you feel they have been wronged and what do you want to be changed? Make them a very unique civ that can only win a score victory? Different tech tree? Exclude all Native American civs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I have stated before, Firaxis putting the Cree in the game was in to way an attempt to demonize them. If they wanted to misrepresent Native American culture and depict them as more warlike savages they could have easily done that with Big Bear or Piapot as the leader. Instead they gave us one of the most peaceful leaders/nations that the game currently has. Gandhi would have counted, if not for him being nuke happy. Certainly they are the most peaceful Native North American representation that the series has seen. The only militaristic thing about them is their scout replacement.
 
Eagle Pursuit said:
I think I have a pretty good idea:

Setup:
a map of the area between the reservation and Battleford
start with a fixed number of Cree units located near the reservation

Objectives:
1) move Cree units to Battleford and surround the city (once this is completed, Canadian forces will begin to spawn and attack you)
2) sequentially after objective 1) is completed, return to the reservation, losing as few units as possible
3) end game with a positive score

Rules:
the Cree are starving, each unit loses 3 HP per turn

you can pillage Canadian tiles to restore a unit to full health, but lose points

Canadian units will withdraw after they drop below 33 HP

if you destroy a Canadian unit, you will lose points

lose points when a Cree unit dies from starvation or combat

gain points for each Cree unit that returns to the reservation

the scenario ends after objective 1) and when all Cree units are back on the reservation or destroyed
Click to expand...

Altough the potential C&D letter has become the main discussion in this thread now, just saying I like your approach for the potential scenario. I was thinkng as well along the lines of remaining "alive" units (both Cree and Caniadian) being the major part of the score. Also, I was thinking on adding civil units in Cut Knife hill reservation that need to be protected.
However, I think I was overcomplicating it by trying to add a layer of diplomatic negotiation (both Cree-Canadian and maybe as well with the First Day's cree warriors and Assiniboine as a third/fourth parties). I found it difficult, however, to define how those negotiations would be (don't seem to fit a "bargain table" mechanic). Any idea?.
 
  • Like
Reactions: liv
Siptah said:
I think it does belong to humanity. This means people are free to see figures from different point of views and that there is probably not a single truth for any person in history. Just think of national heroes, that are very much hated upon in some other countries. It's the right of Mongolia to see Genghis as a hero, and the right of Iran to see him as one of histories greatest villains. That doesn't mean I have to agree with one of those, and it certainly doesn't mean that, since Genghis was Mongolian, theirs is the official point of view and others are not allowed to be spread anymore.

For me personally, crossing the line is when you interfere with that. You can always try to educate others and show them your point of view, of course. But claiming to have the sole truth about a part of history and others are always wrong is just too much. Some states and groups do it that way, though (not accusing Mongolia btw).
Click to expand...

I would look on it roughly the same way. While I do believe the Cree leaders are right to ask to be consulted, my not-a-lawyer point of view is that they have no legal ground to demand that, or to affect the game, in any way.

Were the leader still alive, you could potentially consider a libel/defamation case if they don't agree with the portrayal. However, even for that, you would have to prove that the portrayal actually had a negative effect on people's viewpoints of them. And it's not like Civ is portraying him as a savage cannibal or something that like that. As far as I can tell, the depiction is rather positive, so even under a libel law they likely would not have a case.

Now, the Cree nation and leaders are certainly welcome to make whatever statements they want. They or anyone else can organize a boycott of the game, and that's always someone's right to do. They can issue a cease and desist letter as well, but given the relative lack of legal standing, I don't imagine that a judge would actually grant their request. Although I'm not a lawyer, so presumably those in the 2K offices would have a better understanding of what they need to do to calm the tensions and avoid any possible legal settlement. Whether that's simply donating a portion of sales, or adding a disclaimer in the game, or altering his abilities based on any discussion they have, that's up to them.
 
UWHabs said:
I would look on it roughly the same way. While I do believe the Cree leaders are right to ask to be consulted, my not-a-lawyer point of view is that they have no legal ground to demand that, or to affect the game, in any way.

Were the leader still alive, you could potentially consider a libel/defamation case if they don't agree with the portrayal. However, even for that, you would have to prove that the portrayal actually had a negative effect on people's viewpoints of them. And it's not like Civ is portraying him as a savage cannibal or something that like that. As far as I can tell, the depiction is rather positive, so even under a libel law they likely would not have a case.

Now, the Cree nation and leaders are certainly welcome to make whatever statements they want. They or anyone else can organize a boycott of the game, and that's always someone's right to do. They can issue a cease and desist letter as well, but given the relative lack of legal standing, I don't imagine that a judge would actually grant their request. Although I'm not a lawyer, so presumably those in the 2K offices would have a better understanding of what they need to do to calm the tensions and avoid any possible legal settlement. Whether that's simply donating a portion of sales, or adding a disclaimer in the game, or altering his abilities based on any discussion they have, that's up to them.
Click to expand...

This is the best summation of the differences between legal right and common sense consultation that I have seen so far
 
UWHabs said:
I would look on it roughly the same way. While I do believe the Cree leaders are right to ask to be consulted, my not-a-lawyer point of view is that they have no legal ground to demand that, or to affect the game, in any way.

Were the leader still alive, you could potentially consider a libel/defamation case if they don't agree with the portrayal. However, even for that, you would have to prove that the portrayal actually had a negative effect on people's viewpoints of them. And it's not like Civ is portraying him as a savage cannibal or something that like that. As far as I can tell, the depiction is rather positive, so even under a libel law they likely would not have a case.

Now, the Cree nation and leaders are certainly welcome to make whatever statements they want. They or anyone else can organize a boycott of the game, and that's always someone's right to do. They can issue a cease and desist letter as well, but given the relative lack of legal standing, I don't imagine that a judge would actually grant their request. Although I'm not a lawyer, so presumably those in the 2K offices would have a better understanding of what they need to do to calm the tensions and avoid any possible legal settlement. Whether that's simply donating a portion of sales, or adding a disclaimer in the game, or altering his abilities based on any discussion they have, that's up to them.
Click to expand...
This makes me re-think about the Pueblo case. Apparently the Pueblo Nation Counsel had 2 arguments against the inclusion of the Pueblo and Pope as the leader. The main one was, from what I understand, that they wouldn't allow any of their dead ancestors to be depicted. Secondly, was that apparently they believe their language is holy ~ too holy to appear in a game. There was an easy way around this one, of course...They could have had someone from a related language group do the voice for the leader. May not be exactly historically accurate, but for most of us, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.
 
Canadian Fanatics, have there been any updates in your media about this?
 
Eagle Pursuit said:
Canadian Fanatics, have there been any updates in your media about this?
Click to expand...

Our cruddy media is too obsessed with a certain topic about a certain person in a certain country to the direct south of us.

Moderator Action: Please do not stray in this direction. leif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Overview of Mechanics
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
20K
sTAPler27
sTAPler27
TerrisH
Out of the Portals, a Never Ending Story.
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
13K
J.A.M.
J.A.M.
Meteor Man
OVERLORD (1941 Start) - Second World War In Europe, North Africa, and the Soviet Union
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
15K
Armchairstrategist
A
dbergan
[R&F] Earning my fanatic credentials
Replies
5
Views
2K
Victoria
Victoria
Liufeng
On Cyrus depiction in Civ VI : should gameplay overcome historicity, or the contrary (or balance)
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
10K
Scaramanga
Scaramanga
Back
Top Bottom