CIV 7 issues raised by a Native American

[TheGrayFox]

Continuations of cultural styles and norms does not mean the same. Our Modern Western culture, architecture, fashion, and aesthetics can be said to be traceable a continuation from at least the 1920's (around a century ago), but to casual observation, they're so very different now. Even Mickey Mouse isn't nearly viewed the same as when he first got aboard his steamboat.

Well of course, that's why I keep repeating "there absolutely a reason to distinguish between the Roman Empire of Antiquity and the Eastern Roman Empire of the Midddle ages". No one is arguing that the cultural styles and norms, etc, etc of the Eastern Roman Empire in 1300 were the exact same as in Rome in 300AD...

What I'm pointing out is that "Byzantine" is a completely ahistoric exonym born from a clearly traceable western historigraphic bias and tradition of upholding the Catholic Church and Germanic states in west as true successors of the Roman Empire. The Eastern part of the Empire was Roman and the direct cultural, institutional, religious, etc continuation of the Roman state.

 

[Josephias]

Well, HOMM had more than one failed attempt in continuation before going silent, other example could be The Settlers which also took few games.

Not to say it was also hit by several changes of developers and publishers (the first probably due to the need of Ubisoft to "milk" / recoup the inversion of buying the franchise). HoMM5 was great game-wise (and partly recovered the hit taken by NWC due to HoMM4 risks), however it seems it was not profitable for Ubi, HoMM6 was again risky in search for more players and failed, and led to a low-budget HoMM7 that (while I personally think it was again taking the series back to the "core" path and a good evolution) was received by an already coleric fanbase and it seems did not do well enough, making Ubi searching for alternate ways to use the franchise (a chinese MMO, a mobile game that -I've to say- was quite nice, but of course, ended being PtW...).

I've lost hope we'll see HoMM8 in the short term, as the community is broken and Ubisoft won't devote resources without a clear revenue expectation, but -as you point out- situation is still quite different to the status Civ has at the moment. (and HoMM community was much smaller than Civ's, therefore the collapse was easier on their case).

 

[Acepox]

How is their notion, "commie," may I ask. That sounds nonsensical. In actual Communist ideology, language was, in the broad-scope and long-term, an impediment to achieving the World Worker's Revolution, and had been seen as somthing that had divided the Proleteriat and benefited the Bourgeoises. In Communist ideology, the Revolution did not travel by spread of languages. Thus I have no idea how the idea you criticize is remotely, "Communist." Do tell?

Hey, for sure. Because his words were founded on a rationale that seeks to eliminate categorizations. This is in an attempt to make all humans appear "equal" (read, identical). This is what's known as blank slate ideology, the purpose of which is to affirm the possibility of bringing about L'Homme Nouveau, a reinvented man, unbound from his biological tethers.

The idea is that if all men are the same, then they can be ruled in accordance with the same laws, which justifies the creation of one world government (l'Internationale communiste). This sounds far fetched, but it is extremely real (one could hardly imagine anything more real, in fact), given that hellish communist regimes have existed, still exist, and threaten to rise to fore once more, on one hand. And on the other hand, because what he is downplaying, is the importance of language, which is in fact perhaps the most central element to any given culture. (He would say that he downplays not the importance of language, but the significance of state action, which is a poor defense given how important official linguistic replacement would be to any given ethnic group)

In describing communism you chose to limit yourself to textual Marxism, but communist ideology is much wider in scope and much deeper. I mentioned l'Homme nouveau, it is a concept that actually harkens way back to Plato, even, who thought people should be so temporally dispossessed, even children should belong to the community, not to their parents. And it runs through to, I believe it was, Hegel, who saw history as a long, irreversible march towards progress, rather than simply an interaction of collective interests.

It is this view of politics - the irreversible march - which divides the Left into two groups, the neo-"marxists" (not a great name, I'll give you that) and the more classical liberals. So divided, in fact, that you may have seen in recent days neoconservatives openly side with neo-marxists, while classical liberals side with alt-right (trad-con) types.

Feel free to DM for more precise examples - I didn't want to get too political ITT - or further definitions.

 

[notNamed]

I've lost hope we'll see HoMM8 in the short term, as the community is broken and Ubisoft won't devote resources without a clear revenue expectation...

Well they just announced the next HoMM game so it's not all bleak. Depending on how that goes.

Still, I feel it might be a good time to remind everyone this thread has steered brutally off-topic.
HoMM, Roman empire, creation of nation states/foundations of Western world have absolutely nothing to do with Native American representation in Civ 7.

 

[Patine]

What I'm pointing out is that "Byzantine" is a completely ahistoric exonym born from a clearly traceable western historigraphic bias and tradition of upholding the Catholic Church and Germanic states in west as true successors of the Roman Empire. The Eastern part of the Empire was Roman and the direct cultural, institutional, religious, etc continuation of the Roman state.

Then why are you not criticizing the use of the term, "Aztecs?" The Mexica, one of the six to nine (depending on codex referred to) Nahua ethnities who invasively came down into the now-called Valley of Mexico from the nebulously defined, "Aztlan," never called themselves, "Aztecs," or, "Aztechah." In fact, they believed Huitzlpoctli, their chief deity, forbade them to refer to themselves in any way to their homeland to the north, where they had originally, apparently, been in slavery - forbidden self-references that would have included, "Aztecs," and, "Aztechah," - terms not used until a 1920's American history coined them.

 

[Patine]

Hey, for sure. Because his words were founded on a rationale that seeks to eliminate categorizations. This is in an attempt to make all humans appear "equal" (read, identical). This is what's known as blank slate ideology, the purpose of which is to affirm the possibility of bringing about L'Homme Nouveau, a reinvented man, unbound from his biological tethers.

The idea is that if all men are the same, then they can be ruled in accordance with the same laws, which justifies the creation of one world government (l'Internationale communiste). This sounds far fetched, but it is extremely real (one could hardly imagine anything more real, in fact), given that hellish communist regimes have existed, still exist, and threaten to rise to fore once more, on one hand. And on the other hand, because what he is downplaying, is the importance of language, which is in fact perhaps the most central element to any given culture. (He would say that he downplays not the importance of language, but the significance of state action, which is a poor defense given how important official linguistic replacement would be to any given ethnic group)

In describing communism you chose to limit yourself to textual Marxism, but communist ideology is much wider in scope and much deeper. I mentioned l'Homme nouveau, it is a concept that actually harkens way back to Plato, even, who thought people should be so temporally dispossessed, even children should belong to the community, not to their parents. And it runs through to, I believe it was, Hegel, who saw history as a long, irreversible march towards progress, rather than simply an interaction of collective interests.

It is this view of politics - the irreversible march - which divides the Left into two groups, the neo-"marxists" (not a great name, I'll give you that) and the more classical liberals. So divided, in fact, that you may have seen in recent days neoconservatives openly side with neo-marxists, while classical liberals side with alt-right (trad-con) types.

Feel free to DM for more precise examples - I didn't want to get too political ITT - or further definitions.

Mix-and-match-ideology-to-suit-wonky-narratives-and-points is one of the most bizarre fads of the modern day. And, it does no one, and no society, any favours.

 

[Acepox]

Mix-and-match-ideology-to-suit-wonky-narratives-and-points is one of the most bizarre fads of the modern day. And, it does no one, and no society, any favours.

Ah, so you weren't actually interested in a genuine answer.

Make sure to point out you're trolling next time, will ya?

Although I believe that runs counter to the site's rules...

 

[Patine]

Ah, so you weren't actually interested in a genuine answer.

Make sure to point out you're trolling next time, will ya?

Although I believe that runs counter to the site's rules...

No, it's that I don't agree with your take on the viewpoint, and believe it to be contrived and constructed to make a flawed point. But ideology is all about disagreeing, but I also don't want to get drawn into a long debate, even in PM.. But, I don't appreciate false accusations of my motives in that way.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Hey, for sure. Because his words were founded on a rationale that seeks to eliminate categorizations. This is in an attempt to make all humans appear "equal" (read, identical). This is what's known as blank slate ideology, the purpose of which is to affirm the possibility of bringing about L'Homme Nouveau, a reinvented man, unbound from his biological tethers.

The idea is that if all men are the same, then they can be ruled in accordance with the same laws, which justifies the creation of one world government (l'Internationale communiste). This sounds far fetched, but it is extremely real (one could hardly imagine anything more real, in fact), given that hellish communist regimes have existed, still exist, and threaten to rise to fore once more, on one hand. And on the other hand, because what he is downplaying, is the importance of language, which is in fact perhaps the most central element to any given culture. (He would say that he downplays not the importance of language, but the significance of state action, which is a poor defense given how important official linguistic replacement would be to any given ethnic group)

In describing communism you chose to limit yourself to textual Marxism, but communist ideology is much wider in scope and much deeper. I mentioned l'Homme nouveau, it is a concept that actually harkens way back to Plato, even, who thought people should be so temporally dispossessed, even children should belong to the community, not to their parents. And it runs through to, I believe it was, Hegel, who saw history as a long, irreversible march towards progress, rather than simply an interaction of collective interests.

It is this view of politics - the irreversible march - which divides the Left into two groups, the neo-"marxists" (not a great name, I'll give you that) and the more classical liberals. So divided, in fact, that you may have seen in recent days neoconservatives openly side with neo-marxists, while classical liberals side with alt-right (trad-con) types.

Feel free to DM for more precise examples - I didn't want to get too political ITT - or further definitions.

I'm not even going touch the politics with a stick, just address your historical misunderstanding. There was "no linguistic replacement of an ethnic group" in the Eastern Roman Empire. As several users (including myself) have explained, the Roman educated/ elite learned and could speek Greek before they were even an empire and that the eventual shift in the official language of the Eastern portion empire was simply the realities of the demographics they ruled, which again had predominately spoken Greek since before Rome even conquered these regions and still retained their primary langauge even during imperial rule.

The Roman empire was multi-lingual empire. Despite the military (which ceased using latin in late antiquity) and very small minority class of administrators, the majority population of the east spoke Greek as their primary langauge and the dominate usage of the Greek langauge is the reason why Christianity spread throughout the Empire. Your very idea of trying to simplistically compare the usage of Greek in the Roman Empire to Spanish speakers in the United States immediately highlights a misunderstanding of ancient history, a misunderstanding seemingly driven by modern politics.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Then why are you not criticizing the use of the term, "Aztecs?" The Mexica, one of the six to nine (depending on codex referred to) Nahua ethnities who invasively came down into the now-called Valley of Mexico from the nebulously defined, "Aztlan," never called themselves, "Aztecs," or, "Aztechah." In fact, they believed Huitzlpoctli, their chief deity, forbade them to refer to themselves in any way to their homeland to the north, where they had originally, apparently, been in slavery - forbidden self-references that would have included, "Aztecs," and, "Aztechah," - terms not used until a 1920's American history coined them.

I don't criticize the the usage of the term Byzantine. I'm just explaining the history behind why it is used and why it is technically incorrect, sort of like you just explained why the term Aztec is used despite it being technically incorrect to imply it was an exonym used by the people themselves. Which is kind of different situation than the argument I'm pointing out.

The sad reality about pre-columbian indigenious history is that much is either not recorded, relies on oral recounts, or was purposefully destroyed by the processes colonization and now decades and centuries later western historgraphy has to pick up the slack of trying to categorize and understand the history of the peoples their own histories tried to erase or often miscategorized.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Moderator Action: This topic seems to have run its course as I've been back a few pages and can't find an on topic post, thread closed.