Australian indigenous civ?

[Zaarin]

There's no equivalency between the depiction of native peoples, who were subject during living memory to concerted attempts to eliminate their cultures, and the depiction of nation states such as China.

Bad example: in living memory, China worked very hard to eliminate Chinese culture. (Otherwise I agree with your point. To a degree.)

 

[Inhalaattori]

Could an Indigenous Australian culture be added into Civ proper (they are already in mods) - yes

Are the Devs aware of this - yes, when setting up Australia the explicitly mentioned that they didn't add any Indigenous bonuses to give them space to add an Indigenous Civ in the future

Should they add an Indigenous Civ from Australia - Yes

But - If they do, it has to be done in concert with the people you are adding, more consultation than the Pueblo, more than they gave with the Cree, and probably more than they did with the Maori

It would be total science fiction though. Wouldnt it actually be offensive to include them in the game when they have nothing to do with the stuff you do in the game. I mean Maori and Cree and not that big leap from Australian Aboriginals, but still... They have nothing to do with the themes of the game so I dont really understand why some people want to include them or Inuits.

 

[Red_warning]

There's no equivalency between the depiction of native peoples, who were subject during living memory to concerted attempts to eliminate their cultures, and the depiction of nation states such as China.

The same applies to a lot of peoples actually, some even have their own nation states today.

 

[WillowBrook]

was that the legit leaker?

Yes, assembling typhoon was the accurate leaker and did not predict an Australian indigenous civ. An earlier alleged leak included the Noongar.

It would be total science fiction though,

I'd call it historical fiction. And that's pretty much what this game is, in my view. Canada didn't exist in 4000 B.C. Rome didn't survive to send an expedition to Mars. Pretending that a group of people developed in a different way than happened in actual history is a big part of the fun of the game for many players.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Could an Indigenous Australian culture be added into Civ proper (they are already in mods) - yes

Are the Devs aware of this - yes, when setting up Australia the explicitly mentioned that they didn't add any Indigenous bonuses to give them space to add an Indigenous Civ in the future

Should they add an Indigenous Civ from Australia - Yes

But - If they do, it has to be done in concert with the people you are adding, more consultation than the Pueblo, more than they gave with the Cree, and probably more than they did with the Maori

Hmmm I was about to point out that Australian music has the didgeridoo.

And then I googled to make sure and it turns out it's not a Noongar instrument.

So, theory still stands. For now.

It's about goodwill. Most modern nations that aren't Russia or China (lèse-majesté is still a crime in China!) couldn't care less about their depiction in a video game. Many indigenous peoples, however, feel a need to exert some control over narratives involving their peoples. While this impulse is understandable in a colonial context, exactly how far that should be indulged is a philosophical discussion for another time and place (IMO history and culture are a general, universal human heritage); that consulting with indigenous leaders creates general goodwill, however, is good marketing for Firaxis.

It does great goodwill and like many good principles I support it, inasmuch as the heuristic still achieves a net positive. But then it also points out some troublesome aspects of cultural consultation. Namely the tendency for any culture to try to whitewash its own history and that deference on even the thinnest of rationales can enable them to do it. In the case of the Pueblo, ultimatley the treatment of superstitious, regressive nonsense as somehow more important than historical objectivity.

 

[Zaarin]

Pretending that a group of people developed in a different way than happened in actual history is a big part of the fun of the game for many players.

I still think there are limits, and developing agriculture and sedentary or at least semi-sedentary settlements are a start.

It does great goodwill and like many good principles I support it, inasmuch as the heuristic still achieves a net positive. But then it also points out some troublesome aspects of cultural consultation. Namely the tendency for any culture to try to whitewash its own history and that deference on even the thinnest of rationales can enable them to do it.

100% this. While I understand the concern of cultures that have been maligned, it's by no means an improvement to let them reinvent a romanticized version of their own history. Look at the Cree controversy: the headman was plainly wrong about his assertion that war was not a part of Cree history. History is ugly, and every group is culpable. If you want the sanitized version, you're ignoring the truth.

 

[Haggbart]

It's about goodwill. Most modern nations that aren't Russia or China (lèse-majesté is still a crime in China!) couldn't care less about their depiction in a video game. Many indigenous peoples, however, feel a need to exert some control over narratives involving their peoples. While this impulse is understandable in a colonial context, exactly how far that should be indulged is a philosophical discussion for another time and place (IMO history and culture are a general, universal human heritage); that consulting with indigenous leaders creates general goodwill, however, is good marketing for Firaxis.

My impression is that usually a certain type of (mostly) white, prosperous western people get all upset on behalf of said group, find some entity within the group to support their view, and then use media to portray it as a uniform view of said group.
Firaxis want to cater to potential player bases and have positive publicity, and as such it's a lot easier to use famous historic civilizations or countries (preferably with lots of civ-players) of today in order to increase their player base. Marginal current groups that people in general know little about have little upside and a large potential downside in regards to PR.

 

[Inhalaattori]

In general I feel that many people have very romanticized view on more primitive cultures. Of course they certainly cant be put in one basket, because there are big differences between them - some were/are more violent than others. But if we look at the Papuan tribes for example, their life is usually very short and often their death is violent. Violence, rape, war, witch hunts etc. are rampant. I dont think most people are aware how these people actually live.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

My impression is that usually a certain type of (mostly) white, prosperous western people get all upset on behalf of said group, find some entity within the group to support their view, and then use media to portray it as a uniform view of said group.
Firaxis want to cater to potential player bases and have positive publicity, and as such it's a lot easier to use famous historic civilizations or countries (preferably with lots of civ-players) of today in order to increase their player base. Marginal current groups that people in general know little about have little upside and a large potential downside in regards to PR.

That is generally not how minority mainstreaming happens. It rides on the support of the prosperous whites, but it doesn't even get that far without self advocacy.

The usual pattern is closeted infiltration to raise up a figurehead or two who "comes out." Then stereotypical token representation with the blessing of the whites followed by public acknowledgment and tolerance. Then overt minority backlash at shallow misrepresentation and reform. And we also have to accept that at every step there are also some portion of prosperous whites complaining about all of this as an assault on Western society.

 

[Haggbart]

That is generally not how minority mainstreaming happens. It rides on the support of the prosperous whites, but it doesn't even get that far without self advocacy.

The usual pattern is closeted infiltration to raise up a figurehead or two who "comes out." Then stereotypical token representation with the blessing of the whites followed by public acknowledgment and tolerance. Then overt minority backlash at shallow misrepresentation and reform. And we also have to accept that at every step there are also some portion of prosperous whites complaining about all of this as an assault on Western society.

Sure, my point was just that it's not exactly a democratic process within that group. And the vocal minority at some point starts to speak for that entire group through wesern media as well as the SJWs (in lack of a better word) on social media.

 

[Patine]

In general I feel that many people have very romanticized view on more primitive cultures. Of course they certainly cant be put in one basket, because there are big differences between them - some were/are more violent than others. But if we look at the Papuan tribes for example, their life is usually very short and often their death is violent. Violence, rape, war, witch hunts etc. are rampant. I dont think most people are aware how these people actually live.

And ritual cannibalism, along with the Melanesian cultures. How do you portray that in Civ without being called culturally insensitive - OR exclude it without a conspicuous hole in their history being there?

 

[acluewithout]

I’d love a Civ representing indigenous Australians, but it would be really hard to do it well within the current mechanics.

FXS have so far avoiding mucking around with the core settler-cities-tiles mechanics, with the exception of the Maori. Even then, the Maori are only a very slight tweak of that system.

Civ struggles with nomadic people generally. I’m not sure FXS should try to fix that either - as much as I’d like more nomadic people represented, my worry is that any mechanics would break the game and or be trite.

 

[Red_warning]

And ritual cannibalism, along with the Melanesian cultures. How do you portray that in Civ without being called culturally insensitive - OR exclude it without a conspicuous hole in their history being there?

To be honest though, all civs in Civilizations are very romanticised it's a quite family friendly rendition of humanity

 

[earlc]

I'd call it historical fiction. And that's pretty much what this game is, in my view. Canada didn't exist in 4000 B.C. Rome didn't survive to send an expedition to Mars. Pretending that a group of people developed in a different way than happened in actual history is a big part of the fun of the game for many players.

Yes, exactly. But it can also become patronizing with some cultures, essentially communicating "but what if these technologically primitive cultures did it the right way?" I do see an issue with taking these cultures and making them good little Mesopotamians.

Where the line is drawn might be hard to pin down, but I think a potential civ needs to have a certain number of attributes that conform to the Civ game mechanics in order to be viable. And that's before we even get into historical accuracy, city names, etc.

My sweet tooth for history and learning about cultures makes me excited about the possibility, but I don't think Civ is the right vessel for their representation in an educational game.

 

[Ziad]

all civs in Civilizations are very romanticised

*laughs in Phoenician*

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Civ struggles with nomadic people generally. I’m not sure FXS should try to fix that either - as much as I’d like more nomadic people represented, my worry is that any mechanics would break the game and or be trite.

The game is based around the agricultural revolution and the rise of cities. So yeah, nomadic and semi-nomadic people are a challenging fit under the current structure of the game.

Per the revived discussion about the depiction of other people in the early game on another thread (here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-naval-unit-progression.641771/#post-15364223), these cultures might be well suited to represent AI-controlled people on the border of the player's civ. Treating these people in a more interesting way than the current barbarian/goody hut/city state mechanisms might be a really nice refresh to the current early game (which, though fun, is basically the same in Civ 6 as it was in Civ 1; I for one would like to see some new ideas here).

 

[Haggbart]

The game is based around the agricultural revolution and the rise of cities. So yeah, nomadic and semi-nomadic people are a challenging fit under the current structure of the game.

Per the revived discussion about the depiction of other people in the early game on another thread (here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-naval-unit-progression.641771/#post-15364223), these cultures might be well suited to represent AI-controlled people on the border of the player's civ. Treating these people in a more interesting way than the current barbarian/goody hut/city state mechanisms might be a really nice refresh to the current early game (which, though fun, is basically the same in Civ 6 as it was in Civ 1; I for one would like to see some new ideas here).

I was thinking about this around the time of Civ4 that the barb/goodie hut thing needed a change, but since then city states and natural wonders have been added, which does change the early game exploring a bit. Also the barbs targeting specific cities is new in Civ6. So I'm not sure I agree it's basically the same. They could have had early game nomadic tribes and eventually city states would be formed, however that would give problems with the maps. In Civ BE stations would pop up at random places during the game, and that was super annoying.

 

[WillowBrook]

Yes, exactly. But it can also become patronizing with some cultures, essentially communicating "but what if these technologically primitive cultures did it the right way?" I do see an issue with taking these cultures and making them good little Mesopotamians.

Where the line is drawn might be hard to pin down, but I think a potential civ needs to have a certain number of attributes that conform to the Civ game mechanics in order to be viable. And that's before we even get into historical accuracy, city names, etc.

My sweet tooth for history and learning about cultures makes me excited about the possibility, but I don't think Civ is the right vessel for their representation in an educational game.

Oh, yes, I agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere and that the game can be seen as portraying a certain way of development as superior. I was simply pointing out that calling the inclusion of an indigenous Australian civ "pure science fiction" wasn't much of a critique in the context of the game.

 

[Zaarin]

To be honest though, all civs in Civilizations are very romanticised it's a quite family friendly rendition of humanity

They still managed to sneak in Aztec human sacrifice and flower wars.

 

[blackcatatonic]

They still managed to sneak in Aztec human sacrifice and flower wars.

True! But we won't mention the human sacrifice that, oh, most other cultures were party to at some point in their history