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

[Portinou]

Personally, I'd be happy if Firaxis never included another native American culture in the game... it's more trouble than it's worth. It's a no-win scenario. Moderator Action: Snip

Are you serious about that last sentence?

Moderator Action: If you have concerns over a post please report it rather than engaging with it, in particular do NOT quote objectionable text! --NobleZarkon
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Thormodr]

Are you serious about that last sentence?

Was wondering about that myself. Moderator Action: Snip
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Moderator Action: If you have concerns over a post please report it rather than engaging with it, in particular do NOT quote objectionable text! --NobleZarkon
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Was about to edit this. My apologies to the moderators. - Thormodr

 

[Nikae]

Well you're obviously referring to me so you can drop the "you people". I can see you haven't taken time to read through any of the posts, evidenced by the fact that you quote class warfare when that was not even in context of anything discussed. "Cree exploited for commercial gain". I've never said that in a judgmental manner; in fact I argued that there was nothing wrong with it. What I did say however, is that if you want to make use of somebody's culture to make money, then be honest about it and not come under a pretense of concern because that obviously backfired against Tootoosis.

And with regards to your comments on Tootoosis, he is not against competition; that was a overgeneralized misrepresentation by an article on rockpapaershotgun. You find it unjustified that he has issues with his people being misrepresented, yet I bet if I were to portray your named family and ancestors as prostitutes and murderers in another game that associates itself with history you would be the first to object to it. Can you explain to me the difference in attitude?

No, I was not referring only to you, but the sense of self-importance took the bait. The class warfare was meant for the numerous posts that want to transform the misrepresentation issue into the evil companies issue, yours being the top dog with the 'money grubber' term, also bringing EA into it.

Rockpapershotgun simplified the article because that was the essence of the article. Also, the Cree are not misrepresented that much, so your analogy is rather invalid.

Regardless, I am not going to argue with conviction, you create enough arguments for yourself anyway . You state things as if they were general truths -devs held back by the money grubbers-, even when they are only assumptions. Another good example is that science does not state the universe was born from nothing. It states that we do not know the origin material or energy yet. It is simply twisted to lose credibility.

 

[1SDANi]

Civilization and MOO very much started out as games of imperialism. It was about taking that next hill and the one after it. People came to want more from the game, trying to envision it as some simulation of history rather than a strategy game. 4X was a serviceable appellation, but it should never really be thought of as the pillars of design. Personally, I think it's ready to be put out to pasture. What that Rock/Paper/Shotgun does is connect the concept to 4X to Civilization in a way that leads on to think that the people designing Civ identify with and advocate the term.

As for 4X being a westernized or euro-centric ideology--well, they were the ones who ultimately who became accomplished at it on a global scale. As a game, I think Civilization still has a long way to go in terms of getting past imperialism. Putting aside the victory conditions and focusing on the things players do in the game, there aren't many interesting choices to make along the way that don't involve how to move against someone else. Pursuing culture and science are the more passive means, and they're very procedural. You get some hints of tactical gameply, like when you get a sculptor as your great artist and then have to try to figure out how to theme museum with three different sculptors. I think the devs want to get there, they just don't have a strong vision.

Imperialism is certainly not a good thing for our modern world, but it is something that happened in history, and so I see no reason why a civ game shouldn't be about that. What I would like to see however is some sort of mechanic that makes large empires optimal early game and untenable late game following the advent of modern media and especially the internet and war profitable early game and costly late game following nuclear weapons.

I certainly believe that saying Imperialism should not be the main mechanic for the majority of Civilization's playthrough is ignoring the fact that it worked for thousands of years. If not for nuclear weapons and modern media, we may still be having major wars andIindia may still be a colony of England.

Another thing that Civ does poorly is represent PTSD. There's a reason it became so commonplace following World War 1: PTSD is far more prevalent with modern weaponry than it was with Ancient, Classical, etc. Soldiers used to be able to sleep soundly at night, as no one could fight in the dark. Now with flashlights soldiers can fight all night. It used to be that if you were killed, it was by an opponent that took time to kill you. They'd have to draw and fire their arrow, load and fire a crossbow bolt, impale you with their pike, it gave soldiers a feeling of control. Now if you poke your head out of a bad corner you could die, and your allies will never know who did it. There's explosions going on 24/7 from guns, artillery, bombs, etc. If we wanted to talk about contributing factors to the fall of imperialism being added to civ to represent our modern age, then PTSD is absolutely necessary.

I will agree that the 4Xs is very much something that came to represent European nations, they did indeed accomplish it on a global scale. All I'm saying is that for a game to focus on the 4Xs in any period before the advent of modern warfare, nuclear warfare, and modern media is not euro-centric, it is historically accurate to almost every known nation that implemented agricultural farming, which is what nations in Civilizations represent.

 

[ChocolateShake]

That National Post article has been the most negative yet, even though it ended on a positive note with Milton Tootoosis saying he would be honored to have the Cree in the game as long as they were represented according to their wishes.

I would prefer to have the Cree in the game, but I think at this point it's better for Firaxis to take them out of the expansion, potentially out of the game if they can't reach an agreement with their representatives regarding their inclusion. Or they could replace Poundmaker with another chief, though that might not fix the issue. Having a potential source of negative press stay active for so long might be problematic for the series. They could just create a scenario for a potential Canada civ that included Poundmaker without depicting him.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

That National Post article has been the most negative yet, even though it ended on a positive note with Milton Tootoosis saying he would be honored to have the Cree in the game as long as they were represented according to their wishes.

I would prefer to have the Cree in the game, but I think at this point it's better for Firaxis to take them out of the expansion, potentially out of the game if they can't reach an agreement with their representatives regarding their inclusion. Or they could replace Poundmaker with another chief, though that might not fix the issue. Having a potential source of negative press stay active for so long might be problematic for the series. They could just create a scenario for a potential Canada civ that included Poundmaker without depicting him.

To my mind, all 2K/Firaxis need to do is (a) show this headman how all of the Cree Abilities center around trade & co-operation, rather than war, & (b) promise to add some less Euro-Centric Governments & Civics into the 2nd Expansion. I suspect that would help assuage all of this guy's issues.

 

[Cyberian]

I would prefer to have the Cree in the game, but I think at this point it's better for Firaxis to take them out of the expansion, potentially out of the game if they can't reach an agreement with their representatives regarding their inclusion.

That would be a very bad decision. Especially with all the work already done. It would be in disrespect to the developers who worked hard on that content. Also burning content and having to redo it with valuable developer time therefore producing less content is also bad for your players and hurting business.

It is within anyone's right to dislike a cultural work like in this case a video game. That is fine and we can just let that opinion stand and respect it without necessarily having to do something.

I think SW:The last Jedi is an insult to filmmaking tradition and human intelligence and unsuitable for children. Disney and Cinemas showing it do not have to change a thing if they don't agree.

 

[steveg700]

I will agree that the 4Xs is very much something that came to represent European nations, they did indeed accomplish it on a global scale. All I'm saying is that for a game to focus on the 4Xs in any period before the advent of modern warfare, nuclear warfare, and modern media is not euro-centric, it is historically accurate to almost every known nation that implemented agricultural farming, which is what nations in Civilizations represent.

Thing is, you might have taken this away from previous post, but I really am not too interested in categorizing 4X as euro-centric, I just think as a term that ostensibly encapsulates what a civilization-building game is, with everything a player can do supposedly falling under one those four headings, I think it feels like a placeholder that nobody bothered to follow up on. It's catchy, but it treats running an empire as mostly an external process. Everything a player does to focus on their infrastructure has to fall under "exploit", because the others are focused on claiming what you don't already possess.

I ultimately just want a game with not just a pile of options, but one that results in interesting choices as well. I don't want merely an activity where you are most just following a script of what techs to research, what buildings to prioritize, and so on. And most of these civ's were getting--including the Cree--don't really stoke any creative fires.

 

[ChocolateShake]

To my mind, all 2K/Firaxis need to do is (a) show this headman how all of the Cree Abilities center around trade & co-operation, rather than war, & (b) promise to add some less Euro-Centric Governments & Civics into the 2nd Expansion. I suspect that would help assuage all of this guy's issues.

I hope so! They really should have a meeting or some contact soon.

That would be a very bad decision. Especially with all the work already done. It would be in disrespect to the developers who worked hard on that content. Also burning content and having to redo it with valuable developer time therefore producing less content is also bad for your players and hurting business.

It is within anyone's right to dislike a cultural work like in this case a video game. That is fine and we can just let that opinion stand and respect it without necessarily having to do something.

I think SW:The last Jedi is an insult to filmmaking tradition and human intelligence and unsuitable for children. Disney and Cinemas showing it do not have to change a thing if they don't agree.

I don't want them to take them out, but my concern is that if the story gets picked up by international media outlets/spreads further, the negative coverage might leave a bad impression of the civ series to those who don't know much about it. Maybe I just need to take a break from reading about it

 

[bbbt]

To my mind, all 2K/Firaxis need to do is (a) show this headman how all of the Cree Abilities center around trade & co-operation, rather than war, & (b) promise to add some less Euro-Centric Governments & Civics into the 2nd Expansion. I suspect that would help assuage all of this guy's issues.

From the article, it seems more like 2K/Firaxis need to send them some tobacco and make a donation (or a promo video or something) to the 'exonerate Poundmaker' legal project.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not going to lie, I really had no idea what 4X was until I started reading through this thread. That being said, to say that only Europeans did these sort of things were not true. The Aztecs and Inca did these sort of things as well and I don't even have to explain Mongolia and Shaka of the Zulu.
This cultural appropriation has ended up getting way out of hand, and I'm not just talking about for the Cree and Native Americans in general, but at least here in the U.S. you see it on the news to where it is even bad for certain people to be depicted wearing leis or sombreros.
Maybe it's just me but I know Firaxis had no bad intent on portraying the Cree negatively at all, and I just wish that so many people would see it. The school, that I graduated from, mascot is the Indians (Native Americans) and I know that our intent isn't to portray them in a bad light, but it was a way to commemorate the ones that use to live in our area along time ago as well as our town name.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Not going to lie, I really had no idea what 4X was until I started reading through this thread. That being said, to say that only Europeans did these sort of things were not true. The Aztecs and Inca did these sort of things as well and I don't even have to explain Mongolia and Shaka of the Zulu.
This cultural appropriation has ended up getting way out of hand, and I'm not just talking about for the Cree and Native Americans in general, but at least here in the U.S. you see it on the news to where it is even bad for certain people to be depicted wearing leis or sombreros.
Maybe it's just me but I know Firaxis had no bad intent on portraying the Cree negatively at all, and I just wish that so many people would see it. The school, that I graduated from, mascot is the Indians (Native Americans) and I know that our intent isn't to portray them in a bad light, but it was a way to commemorate the ones that use to live in our area along time ago as well as our town name.

I think the issue isn't so much the "4x" aspects, but that everything (the tech advancement, city-based, "winning" etc) is built on a template of how western society developed. That's going hard to resolve though, as the solutions seem to be not including people in that tradition (excluding traditionally "excluded" groups, not a great answer as most people want to see more diversity), removing most of the Civ mechanics and conditions (at which point you don't really have a game), or shoehorning civs in in a way that doesn't totally make historical sense.

 

[Karpius]

I am truly convinced, after reading through this thread and the articles that prompted it, that the game Civilization should no longer include references to real names. I know I mentioned it before, but was half kidding. Now I am serious.

Civilization the game, afterall, represents a fantasy construct whereby we insert some historical names into a setting that never existed. Yes, we want to use the flavor of certain civilizations we know from history, but it is usually not very representative of any real history to begin with. They are simply names, nothing more. We use a leader's name for the flavor of it, but there is virtually no accuracy in the representation. If I decide to play Barbarossa as a man of peace who cared little about religion, would that be historically accurate?

I always just accepted thats how the game goes and it was no big deal. Its fantasy. 'What If' fiction. Teddy and Cleopatra become fast friends and declare joint war against Gitarja. I think thats interesting stuff, but now I see it is also a can of worms. Good ole Teddy would never side with that Egyptian queen, right?

What we really do is build a civilization from the ground up using our best understanding of the various 'stages' - in the most general sense - of human history.

To put it simply. Man's first tools and weapons were sticks and stones. Language helped groups work together as well as identify with each other. Eventually man developed edged tools/weapons. Larger collectives formed as agriculture set in. People started looking to certain individuals to lead, and certain individuals were all too willing to claim that leadership. That sort of gets us to the first villages in an oversimplified narrative, but thats the general idea in our game. Throw in paths to religion and science and culture, and off we go. Throw in the name of a specific nation-state known to history and history becomes a casualty right off the bat.

Now don't get me wrong! I enjoy those fantasy elements. The chance to mix such disparate names together has been part of the fun. But in the end, they all need to follow a similar path, yes? We are all playing under the same rules and competing to achieve certain conditions. In that sense, historical accuracy must take a back seat. What remains is the the stages of human development in the broadest sense. Much of that development was centered around various communities vying for ever bigger pieces of the pie.

But now I see that these generalities that we long accepted for other cultures might not be viewed as acceptable to others. Indeed, if we look even deeper, I am sure we can find many arguments with how the many different nation-states have been depicted so far. Perhaps some more flattering than others, but all holding to inaccuracies that could render them unplayable if we really thought about it.

So perhaps the solution, to avoid complaints of inaccuracy in the future, is for the game to devolve to non-realistic names. How about Queen Chatty Katty leading the nation of Kornucopia? President Pythias of Picklelania? I'm not trying to be facetious, despite my lame attempts at humorous examples. I am completely serious. The very same game could be played with just a change of the names and no one needs to feel bad.

No one wants to be INsensitive, but sometimes, the seas of sensitivity can be awfully treacherous to navigate.

 

[Kyro]

No, I was not referring only to you, but the sense of self-importance took the bait. The class warfare was meant for the numerous posts that want to transform the misrepresentation issue into the evil companies issue, yours being the top dog with the 'money grubber' term, also bringing EA into it.

The funny thing is, everything you quoted was from my posts and what's more I wasn't even presenting the profiteering itself as negative. If you wish to quote me out of context, at least have the gumption to state who you're quoting instead of setting a "self-importance" trap to prevent any correction of your misrepresentation.

Rockpapershotgun simplified the article because that was the essence of the article. Also, the Cree are not misrepresented that much, so your analogy is rather invalid.

Regardless, I am not going to argue with conviction, you create enough arguments for yourself anyway . You state things as if they were general truths -devs held back by the money grubbers-, even when they are only assumptions. Another good example is that science does not state the universe was born from nothing. It states that we do not know the origin material or energy yet. It is simply twisted to lose credibility.

You lie with such conviction it is almost admirable. You say this:

You state things as if they were general truths

When you make unqualified statements like these:

Rockpapershotgun simplified the article because that was the essence of the article. Also, the Cree are not misrepresented that much, so your analogy is rather invalid.

Where is your counter argument that Cree aren't being misrepresented on rockpapershotgun? On what basis? Just saying they are right in that simplification and saying they're not misrepresented much gives you no leverage to say that my analogy is invalid.

Quote from Milton Tootoosis: "It perpetuates this myth that First Nations had similar values that the colonial culture has, and that is one of conquering other peoples and accessing their land," he said. "That is totally not in concert with our traditional ways and world view."

Where does he state/imply that he is against competition? The Cree play sports games too you know?

And with regards to Devs being held back by money grubbers. You don't work in the games industry do you? Do you even know anybody there?

The rest of your statements are completely irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Kyro]

My initial draft was talking about war, but I felt like 4X was a much better term for what I was trying to get across, mainly the building of empires off the four pillars of eXterminate, eXplore, eXploit, and eXpand. I wasn't using 4X to refer to the genre, but the concept that is traditionally associated with controlling empires both in times of peace and in times of war. I'm in no way saying the 4Xs are the only parts of civ worth discussing, I'm saying that the Cree spokesperson believes that the 4Xs are a euro-centric ideology, and I gave examples as to why that's false.

The problem is Milton Tootoosis has come to view Civ 6 as a game about "conquering other peoples and accessing their land". War exists in nearly every Civilization that exists. The difference is, not all Cultures were actively engaged conquering other peoples and their land far beyond what they regarded as their own.

In many times of history war happens when different peoples lay claim to the same land they want to call home. This type of war is common even among the native North Americans and are fought for Survival. In European colonial context however, War happens when Europeans want a piece of someone else's land for the sake of extending their control, usually for the profit of trade.

Mind you this is not a border dispute between two nations, this is someone trying to take what originally belonged to another.

This traversing of continents across oceans to invade somebody for the sake of Profit, that is very European.

There are Wars for Survival, and Wars for Profit. There is a huge difference, the former being inevitable and the latter being intentional.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Two rather sensationalist articles suggest things have gotten irreparably bad and that the Cree (collectively) are outraged; several more balanced articles suggest that Headman Totoosis would have liked to have been contacted first as a courtesy, has some concerns about the game, but also suggests he saw some aspects of the portrayal rather positively. I really think the available evidence suggests that the media is blowing this out of proportion (shocking, I know).

R&F has been advertised as including eight civs and nine leaders, and it's too late to replace the Cree. R&F will ship with the Cree, and at most they'll be excluded from the Canadian version of the game.

NB that outside of Headman Totoosis, the Cree have been well-received, including by the Poundmaker Singers and by Cree players. NB that Headman Totoosis also has a political agenda here. Not an unreasonable one, but still an agenda.

The article also makes several assertions that are patently untrue (including that Sid Meier's Civilization is made by 2K, the publisher not developer), so I'd take anything it says with a rather large grain of salt.

Yeah and what else is lost is that this is just ONE member of the Cree that takes some issues with the display. Granted Headman Totoosis is more influential within the Cree Nation than most individual members, but at the time of those interviews he had not even consulted with the elders. So for what is played that all of the Cree people are so appalled is really one member of the Cree sees some potential issues (as highlighted in the follow-up article from Clyde Tootoosis.



And he absolutely has a political agenda, although I really feel he has approached it the wrong way. Even though he was not nearly as negative as much of the press has sensationalized it to be, he was still fairly negative prompting much of the sensationalism as well as other very critical pieces about 2K and Friaxis. In the end this is bad for both the Cree and all indigenous people. The unfortunate truth is like many other indigenous people the Cree are all but forgotten. They were unable to find 5,000 people to just make an anonymous signature, and in a world where 7,000 people actually gave money to a dude that was simply making potato salad, they are clearly not a major factor in the public's eye. They are about to get a platform to be seen by the millions. And instead of people talking about how cool and interesting this culture they have never heard of or only heard of in passing the narrative is negative and about portrayal of cultures in general. The Cree are once again lost, when it could be a story about them.

All this isn't to say he should just blindly accept what Friaxis has done or must be OK with all the aspects of the design. No, there most certainly can be concerns about these things, but by stating what should have happened, handing out ultimatums, and even threating legal action (even in passing) all will ultimately hurt them. If instead he had mentioned that there are articular aspect he feels missed the mark and instead invited them to come and make the depiction better, or acknowledged a video game won't/can't be the most accurate it could have flipped the narrative and resulted in so much more news actually about the Cree people.

Maybe this is what he wanted. For the Cree to be the only one to tell their own story. No one else will want to depict them, to avoid any potential backlash (well other than those that would have a clear negative agenda as backlash would be irrelevant to them), which sadly will also extended to other indigenous cultures as well. Many stories that could have really benefited from some global exposure will be lost in the future. In the end Friaxis could do absolutely nothing, never make a comment and the world will move on, even on a slow news weekend the story had no legs. They may give some half-hearted apology, but there will be no real action, no real dialogue to address concerns real or perceived. Ultimately it is an opportunity lost.. However, hopefully the uptick in interest can lead to some traction on Poundmaker's legacy.

 

[1SDANi]

The problem is Milton Tootoosis has come to view Civ 6 as a game about "conquering other peoples and accessing their land". War exists in nearly every Civilization that exists. The difference is, not all Cultures were actively engaged conquering other peoples and their land far beyond what they regarded as their own.

In many times of history war happens when different peoples lay claim to the same land they want to call home. This type of war is common even among the native North Americans and are fought for Survival. In European colonial context however, War happens when Europeans want a piece of someone else's land for the sake of extending their control, usually for the profit of trade.

Mind you this is not a border dispute between two nations, this is someone trying to take what originally belonged to another.

This traversing of continents across oceans to invade somebody for the sake of Profit, that is very European.

There are Wars for Survival, and Wars for Profit. There is a huge difference, the former being inevitable and the latter being intentional.

Even with that definition the Civ series still isn't about colonialism and is still about human history. Some nations decided to have Wars for Profit, and others not, same can be said for players and many AI in the civ series. Additionally my original post was made to prove that war, later changed to the term 4X, is not a European only or even original concept, but an act that all civilizations that discover Agriculture take part in. Even with the term 4X, Wars for Survival are still about exploring your home for traitors and invaders, expanding until your nation fills your home territory, exploiting the land*, and exterminating those who seek an end to your way of life.

*My original comment was about Agricultural Societies, and agriculture is, by definition, exploiting the land.

 

[Nikae]

It might shock you but you were not the only one to say 'commercial gain', I quoted the term and not you. Also, 'money grubber' is fairly negative. Others who spotted it are also wrong, right?

Yes, he's got problems, namely that a 4X game's competitive philosophy does not fit the Cree. Hence I said the simplification is correct. The level of misrepresentation I meant for Firaxis, that's why I said your analogy is wrong.

I worked in the gaming industry, as a part of a team that developed Arcanum and Vampire: Bloodlines. Yeah, it was almost 20 years ago.

I make unqualified statements. Sure, what makes you qualified and me unqualified?

Conquest for profit is very European, right? Ask the Mongols or the Ottomans as core European cultures.

You argue for argument's sake, twist, deliberately misunderstand and rephrase sentences until people are too tired to respond.

Just like religious zealots. You march and preach and when someone does not agree, you go into crusade mode, as seen above. I am out, thank you.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

In many times of history war happens when different peoples lay claim to the same land they want to call home. This type of war is common even among the native North Americans and are fought for Survival. In European colonial context however, War happens when Europeans want a piece of someone else's land for the sake of extending their control, usually for the profit of trade.

That only happens in Europe, eh?

 

[1SDANi]

That only happens in Europe, eh?

I'm too busy Leading the Egyptians to conquer Jerusalem, Phoenecia, Babylonia, and Persia before getting my ass handed to me by Plagues in Rhyes and Fall to look up what desires fueled early nations' wars, so if you wish to write a documentary on it like I did I'd be very thankful.