Australian indigenous civ?

[Zaarin]

Would this work? Would you buy a smaller DLC pack which added a prehistoric era, plus the Inuit and Noongar as civs with specifically prehistoric era bonuses?

It would depend on how they did it. I'd rather see a prehistoric spinoff.

Haida...outnumber Cree

I find that statistic extremely surprising.

 

[Patine]

It would depend on how they did it. I'd rather see a prehistoric spinoff.


I find that statistic extremely surprising.

So did I. And more of them apparently live in Nanaimo, Victoria, Vancouver, and Prince Rupert, and their suburbs than on Haida Guaranii, by a large margin.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I've not seen this desire as a common, popular sentiment, only as an outlier desire of a notable, but small, minority. I wouldn't say "players really want" in such broad terms. I think the interest seems to be niche.



By Canadian First Nations registered Treaty Status statistics, Iroquois, Objibwe, Haida, and Miqmaq all outnumber Cree (though numbers are notably close). These numbers also do not include Metis or Inuit, who are not "First Nations" but different statuses entirely. And, of course, there are those with traceable First Nations backgrounds, and even have obvious First Nations or Metis physical features, but are not registered as a Treaty status in any First Nation, Metis, or Inuit, but are "standard" Canadian citizens due to poorly-done paperwork which is still being attempted to be corrected.

Are...you a troll?

Moderator Action: If you think someone is a troll, please report it. Calling someone a troll is to be a troll. leif

I cannot believe this.

The Cree have a population of approximately 392,000. The Haida have 1500 on the island and another 2000 elsewhere. These are crude Wikipedia estimates but you are talking a difference of 100fold that you have to make up somewhere. Every population count I have seen for the Haida is in the 4 digit range.

In fact, I am looking at the linguistic breakdown of that same 2016 census, and the Cree are by and far the largest population.

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016022/98-200-x2016022-eng.cfm

 

[Patine]

Are...you a troll?

I cannot believe this.

The Cree have a population of approximately 392,000. The Haida have 1500 on the island and another 2000 elsewhere. These are crude Wikipedia estimates but you are talking a difference of 100fold that you have to make up somewhere. Every population count I have seen for the Haida is in the 4 digit range.

In fact, I am looking at the linguistic breakdown of that same 2016 census, and the Cree are by and far the largest population.

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016022/98-200-x2016022-eng.cfm

The term "Cree" is also problematic. There are certain Northern Woodlands- and Canadian Shield-dwelling, Algonquian-speaking ethnicities who traded with, and trapped for, the HBC, and some joined the short-lived Iron Confederacy military alliance in the late 1900's (mostly against northward expansion by the Sioux "Council of Seven Fires," actually) who are classified as "Cree" by the Canadian government and by the Chiefs of the major, and biggest Cree nations, but don't consider themselves Cree, and are lobbying for redefinition to the national identify of "their ancestors." Hence, the given number on "Cree" you have there is internally in dispute.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The term "Cree" is also problematic. There are certain Northern Woodlands- and Canadian Shield-dwelling, Algonquian-speaking ethnicities who traded with, and trapped for, the HBC, and some joined the short-lived Iron Confederacy military alliance in the late 1900's (mostly against northward expansion by the Sioux "Council of Seven Fires," actually) who are classified as "Cree" by the Canadian government and by the Chiefs of the major, and biggest Cree nations, but don't consider themselves Cree, and are lobbying for redefinition to the national identify of "their ancestors." Hence, the given number on "Cree" you have there is internally in dispute.

Even still, you are talking about basically halving that number, which I'm very dubious of without a clearer breakdown.

And the reported Haida numbers don't come close to the level that the Ojibwe or Iroquois do.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

2. So far native representation in VI has been very much population and/or land-based. The Cree have the largest (or second-largest?) population in Canada, and stretched the furthest across the northern territories. The Mapuche have the largest population in Chile and Argentina, and at one point controlled the northern half of both regions. And for similar reasons I wholly expect the Navajo to be our U.S. tribe, given that they hold the largest tribal territory in the U.S., as well as represent the largest native population in the U.S.

Although I agree with you on the Cree, even though the exact number might be disputed, I believe the Cherokee might be the largest tribe by numbers in the U.S. while the Navajo is a close second with them having the largest reservation. Still I believe geography wise they fill the hole in the southwest of the U.S. and can offer a different playstyle than many other tribes.

 

[Patine]

Even still, you are talking about basically halving that number, which I'm very dubious of without a clearer breakdown.

And the reported Haida numbers don't come close to the level that the Ojibwe or Iroquois do.

The Haida numbers also suffer from the fact that, unlike the other three, the Haida had no official "treaty," or even formal recognition, legally speaking, until the eve of the 21st Century, and catch-up paperwork is still being done.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Although I agree with you on the Cree, even though the exact number might be disputed, I believe the Cherokee might be the largest tribe by numbers in the U.S. while the Navajo is a close second with them having the largest reservation. Still I believe geography wise they fill the hole in the southwest of the U.S. and can offer a different playstyle than many other tribes.

I have actually seen statistics pointing either way between the Navajo and Cherokee. I don't think it really matters much since the Cherokee would probably take issue with the ability for players to reenact the trail of tears.

Regardless, playstyle aside, I would still hold that among equivalencies the Navajo have made more impressive leaps toward pseudo-statehood. They own two very large territories in Arizona, which itself is a whopping 27 percent tribal land. At a total of 28,000 square miles of territory, they are larger than TEN states.

 

[Patine]

I have actually seen statistics pointing either way between the Navajo and Cherokee. I don't think it really matters much since the Cherokee would probably take issue with the ability for players to reenact the trail of tears.

Regardless, playstyle aside, I would still hold that among equivalencies the Navajo have made more impressive leaps toward pseudo-statehood. They own two very large territories in Arizona, which itself is a whopping 27 percent tribal land. At a total of 28,000 square miles of territory, they are larger than TEN states.

The "Trail of Tears" was not their own initiative and action. It was done to them by a conquering power - like so many different peoples around the have suffered such atrocities and indignities at the hands of conquering peoples of all sorts around the world throughout history. I would definitely ask any game designer who made that an aspect of Cherokee initiative if they would also give the Great Migration to the Austrian Banate, fleeing their homelands conquered by the Ottomans, under similar horrid conditions, as a something in that vein to a hypothetical Serb civilization, as well, off the top of my head, of many such examples.

 

[Zaarin]

I have actually seen statistics pointing either way between the Navajo and Cherokee. I don't think it really matters much since the Cherokee would probably take issue with the ability for players to reenact the trail of tears.

The Iroquois, Cherokee, Navajo, and Lakota are all high-profile tribes who are very used to media attention; I don't think anyone would have the sort of objections one Cree headman with a political agenda had with the inclusion of the Cree. Also worth noting that all four of those are also very aware and very proud of their warrior heritage.

 

[Patine]

The Iroquois, Cherokee, Navajo, and Lakota are all high-profile tribes who are very used to media attention; I don't think anyone would have the sort of objections one Cree headman with a political agenda had with the inclusion of the Cree. Also worth noting that all four of those are also very aware and very proud of their warrior heritage.

Also, no one headman or chief "speaks for the Cree," or is mandated or recognized to do so, whatever cultural authority Firaxis saw this individual as having. Each band, who have a name, treaty status, reservation with a townsite, a chief, elders, and elected band council, and allotment of Federal funds, is it's own completely separate unit from all other Cree bands (though they consult each other, and even have meeting of Cree chiefs, there is no one "Cree cultural leader" who speaks with the kind of authority stated). And, as I said, a number of the bands labelled Cree have been disputing THAT ethnic label. Also, some Cree chiefs take pride in the old Cree warrior heritage, rather than denying it even existed, like Matthew Coon Cum, who was even a Grand Chief of the National Assembly of First Nations for a term - and a very confrontational one, or that Chief in Lubicon Lake who briefly declared "independence and secession from Canada" of a chunk of sparsely populated and improved Northern Alberta woodlands, bog, and muskeg.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The Iroquois, Cherokee, Navajo, and Lakota are all high-profile tribes who are very used to media attention; I don't think anyone would have the sort of objections one Cree headman with a political agenda had with the inclusion of the Cree. Also worth noting that all four of those are also very aware and very proud of their warrior heritage.

Oh I definitely think as a whole many Cherokee would welcome representation. Particularly since there is a vast spectrum of Cherokee heritage ranging from full tribal membership to casual advocates. And I don't think their representation in a Civ game would attempt to portray them as anything less than competent martially.

HOWEVER, there are some historical tragedies that mainstream media does not like to approach except with extreme, documentary objectivity. The holocaust is one, and why we will never get an Israel civ. The Armenian genocide is another, which is why as much as I want a classical era Armenia that will always have a cloud hanging over its head.

And as far as American history goes, the Trail of Tears is just something that won't be touched. And to be quite honest, I think once enough alt-right videos labelled "Trail of Tears" began inevitably posting on YouTube, pride and pragmatism would be thrown out the window. It would be far more than just one leader complaining about the Cherokee being in Civ.

Also, no one headman or chief "speaks for the Cree," or is mandated or recognized to do so, whatever cultural authority Firaxis saw this individual as having. Each band, who have a name, treaty status, reservation with a townsite, a chief, elders, and elected band council, and allotment of Federal funds, is it's own completely separate unit from all other Cree bands (though they consult each other, and even have meeting of Cree chiefs, there is no one "Cree cultural leader" who speaks with the kind of authority stated). And, as I said, a number of the bands labelled Cree have been disputing THAT ethnic label. Also, some Cree chiefs take pride in the old Cree warrior heritage, rather than denying it even existed, like Matthew Coon Cum, who was even a Grand Chief of the National Assembly of First Nations for a term - and a very confrontational one, or that Chief in Lubicon Lake who briefly declared "independence and secession from Canada" of a chunk of sparsely populated and improved Northern Alberta woodlands, bog, and muskeg.

Mmmmmm. Idunno, I don't exactly have the most faith in people's ability to self-identify heritage, particularly native tribes. And I say this only because we have instances of self-assertion like the Pueblo insisting against historical representation because they believe in some nonsense dark voodoo surrounding replication of sacred imagery and recording of language. I simply do not put blind faith in tribal historiography because the fact is that as a general rule native tribes exist in a sort of limbo between the ignorance of the past and the knowledge of the present.

I mean maybe they have good documentation of being distinct for a substantial period of their history, but I would imagine that there are historians, linguists, and geneticists who could more definitively figure whether a tribe is actually distinct from the Cree, or if the movement for independence were more a more modern, reactionary trend against selling out to strong, centralized authority.

The fact is that the Cree were aggressively expansionist for a period and maintained a wide trade network. The longer that went on, and the longer any algonquin tribe accepted Cree cultural dominance, the more integrated and "Cree" they would have become: genetically, linguistically, and culturally. At this point Bavaria can't just up and claim that it was never German.

Put another way, the Balkans are a mess of disparate ethnic identities, but for many of them to claim that they weren't "Slavic" would be patently untrue. Or an even clearer analogy, for any smaller Scottish clans--even those which existed in northern England--to suddenly claim that they were never Scottish. In fact this kind of identitarian hair-splitting feels on its face like the inverse of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Obviously there are spectra of identity, and I would wholly believe that there are at least a few tribes who have remained un-Cree-like throughout the years. But absent some hard evidence behind it I would probably err toward the belief that "Cree" is not an inappropriate term for those individuals who a) share cultural signifiers with the Cree and b) speak a Cree dialect.

 

[Bechhold]

And what would they have as a feature. They didn't practice Agriculture, Writing, or even any type of state level bureaucracy. They weren't even a united "civ" they were hunter gatherers.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

And what would they have as a feature. They didn't practice Agriculture, Writing, or even any type of state level bureaucracy. They weren't even a united "civ" they were hunter gatherers.

Precisely why I think the Noongar would only work as a civ with prehistoric bonuses. Give them some cultural bonus, a hunting/gathering bonus, and call it done.

This is, to my mind, the only way an Australian indigenous civ could ever happen without outright breaking plausibility.

This is also the only context that I would support a second Australian civ. As much as I would appreciate having a second civ to compete with Australia for a comparatively huge landmass, I do not consider any Australian tribe, not even the Noongar, to support a strong civ design.

But, if you want features, they could have a boomerang unit which would be rather unique and nifty. Some terrain bonuses. Fire-stick farming.

Again, it's not enough to really sustain a traditionally designed civ, but for a civ specifically designed around early prehistoric bonuses they have enough. And they do have a fairly strong connection with prehistory, like the Wagyl being speculated as being based on a giant prehistoric species of python.

 

[Patine]

Mmmmmm. Idunno, I don't exactly have the most faith in people's ability to self-identify heritage, particularly native tribes. And I say this only because we have instances of self-assertion like the Pueblo insisting against historical representation because they believe in some nonsense dark voodoo surrounding replication of sacred imagery and recording of language. I simply do not put blind faith in tribal historiography because the fact is that as a general rule native tribes exist in a sort of limbo between the ignorance of the past and the knowledge of the present.

I mean maybe they have good documentation of being distinct for a substantial period of their history, but I would imagine that there are historians, linguists, and geneticists who could more definitively figure whether a tribe is actually distinct from the Cree, or if the movement for independence were more a more modern, reactionary trend against selling out to strong, centralized authority.

The fact is that the Cree were aggressively expansionist for a period and maintained a wide trade network. The longer that went on, and the longer any algonquin tribe accepted Cree cultural dominance, the more integrated and "Cree" they would have become: genetically, linguistically, and culturally. At this point Bavaria can't just up and claim that it was never German.

Put another way, the Balkans are a mess of disparate ethnic identities, but for many of them to claim that they weren't "Slavic" would be patently untrue. Or an even clearer analogy, for any smaller Scottish clans--even those which existed in northern England--to suddenly claim that they were never Scottish. In fact this kind of identitarian hair-splitting feels on its face like the inverse of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Obviously there are spectra of identity, and I would wholly believe that there are at least a few tribes who have remained un-Cree-like throughout the years. But absent some hard evidence behind it I would probably err toward the belief that "Cree" is not an inappropriate term for those individuals who a) share cultural signifiers with the Cree and b) speak a Cree dialect.

This sounds like the exact sort of screed, changing out specifics for context, that you would be hissing and fuming at if it were used to counter one of your arguments (and it could easily be used, or something in it's tenor, against several "points" you've). Also, fixating neurotically on the imagined and unsubstantiated "myopic Scottish-centric view of the world with next to perspective or true knowledge outside of it" with no actual evidence other than me expressing annoyance a year-and-a-half ago with bad ethnic stereotypes used in humour, has REALLY gotten old and hackneyed there. I'm not even resident in Scotland, for crying out loud!

 

[PhoenicianGold]

This sounds like the exact sort of screed, changing out specifics for context, that you would be hissing and fuming at if it were used to counter one of your arguments (and it could easily be used, or something in it's tenor, against several "points" you've). Also, fixating neurotically on the imagined and unsubstantiated "myopic Scottish-centric view of the world with next to perspective or true knowledge outside of it" with no actual evidence other than me expressing annoyance a year-and-a-half ago with bad ethnic stereotypes used in humour, has REALLY gotten old and hackneyed there. I'm not even resident in Scotland, for crying out loud!

Again I think you are misrepresenting my positions. Given that I support VI representing broad cultural paradigms, I think my view on the Cree aligns reasonably well with my position on the Mexica, the Gurkani, the Romans, the Akkadians. In fact I would say that consistently I have generally preferred consolidated, borderline blobby civs over the nitpicky fracturing of civs that some insist on, and that this has continually been a point of contention between us. I see no hypocrisy on either side, to be frank.

Nor did I completely dismiss your point. I'm sure Cree numbers are artificially inflated in the same way Cherokee or Navajo or Sioux are. I'm sure there are tribes who want and deserve to be recognized independently. I just don't see how that obviates an overarching "Cree" heritage which affects both large and small tribes and lends itself extremely well to broad Canadian native representation. The devs can only make so many civs; I would prefer they go wide as often as they can to at least tangentially (by consent or otherwise) represent as much of the world as possible.

And as to the Scottish thing, I'm afraid I don't remember what happened a year and a half ago. But I certainly do not think that Amerindian tribes evolved culturally and politically much differently than the European tribes. If players were happy with "Celts" or want "Maori" or "Swahili," if that is the best we can represent a large and influential culture then I would prefer that over a dozen Mesopotamian civs (sorry, Zaarin).

 

[Patine]

Again I think you are misrepresenting my positions. Given that I support VI representing broad cultural paradigms, I think my view on the Cree aligns reasonably well with my position on the Mexica, the Gurkani, the Romans, the Akkadians. In fact I would say that consistently I have generally preferred consolidated, borderline blobby civs over the nitpicky fracturing of civs that some insist on, and that this has continually been a point of contention between us. I see no hypocrisy on either side, to be frank.

Nor did I completely dismiss your point. I'm sure Cree numbers are artificially inflated in the same way Cherokee or Navajo or Sioux are. I'm sure there are tribes who want and deserve to be recognized independently. I just don't see how that obviates an overarching "Cree" heritage which affects both large and small tribes and lends itself extremely well to broad Canadian native representation. The devs can only make so many civs; I would prefer they go wide as often as they can to at least tangentially (by consent or otherwise) represent as much of the world as possible.

And as to the Scottish thing, I'm afraid I don't remember what happened a year and a half ago. But I certainly do not think that Amerindian tribes evolved culturally and politically much differently than the European tribes. If players were happy with "Celts" or want "Maori" or "Swahili," if that is the best we can represent a large and influential culture then I would prefer that over a dozen Mesopotamian civs (sorry, Zaarin).

The point of what I was saying is something you've obviously missed. I never once advocated for the Cree to be excluded. I never once said that, though several of your retorts are worded as though I did. What I'm saying is that Firaxis basing the whole portrayal of the Cree based on the viewpoint of a single, obviously-biased, and historical revisionist, headman, who is even notably disagreed with by a fair number of other Cree Chiefs and other cultural leaders (notably on the Cree tradition of "war" and "warriors," but there's a few others), and viewing him as a SINGULAR authority to the exclusion of any other alternatives, is a folly and mistake by Firaxis in my opinion.

 

[Zaarin]

And as far as American history goes, the Trail of Tears is just something that won't be touched.

TBH I'd rather have the Choctaw anyway. Too many of the Cherokee leaders were collaborators against their own tribe.

I would prefer that over a dozen Mesopotamian civs (sorry, Zaarin).

I'd be delighted with a dozen more Mesopotamian/Near Eastern civs, but I'll settle for one.

mistake by Firaxis

I agree with your general post, but I don't think it was Firaxis so much as the media that gave Totoosis more credence than he was due. And the media is always hungry for a sensationalist story, so of course they're going to jump on "BIG EVIL AMERICAN COMPANY OFFENDS NATIVE AMERICAN'S SACRED ANCESTORS!"

 

[Chuma]

There was a barbarians mod for CIV IV I think? Was enjoyable. Something like that.

 

[Chuma]

"Shut 'er down Clancy she's pumpin' mud!"