CIV 7 issues raised by a Native American

[Vahnstad]

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/s/kiILRvoQJM

A perspective from a Shawnee person regarding the civ switching. Kinda sad reading from his thoughts and perspectives. Seem like Firaxis made a misstep.

This is something that worries me as well, and is quite sensitive. One of the problems is that most people aren't even aware that European colonizers (first) and later USA genocided most of the natives. And so, what doesn't seem to be a problem to many, is actually a problem for the culture(s) you try to represent. A native into USA "historical path" would feel very wrong, given they're still often treated as B-people in their own nations, incl. the state of Hawaii.

 

[Thrasybulos]

active hostility to the peoples being discussed

Why would I be hostile to dead people?

other than ignorance

That's more like it.
I'm no expert on the subject.

I'm aware (vaguely) that we've found traces of advanced civilizations on what is now the US territory, with major urban centers, who certainly differed a lot from the Lakota.
And I don't think Firaxis meant to include under the "Native Americans" umbrella all the pre-colombian civs that have foulrished, lived, and died in that territory in the past 10,000 years. The name they chose for that civilization was a mistake ("First Nations" would have been more appropriate?), though.

Sparta and Athens had hugely differences. No one would suggest they were two different "civilizations".
And 1900 USA as a civilization is far more removed from today's USA than today's Japan is.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Generally I see 2 issues here:

1. Potential multiplayer offense, or just random roll result which could be viewed as offensive. That's problem, but you can't do anything with it. The more flexibility you have, the more potential offensive results are there. I believe the potential combos (i.e. Spanish leader ruling Maya) have to be ignored, but if player intensify this with, for example, city naming - that's work for moderation.

2. Disappearing of cultures, which still exist. That's really hot debate, because the definition of what counts as culture still existing is totally debatable. But I totally see how it could be offensive for people struggling with preserving their national culture. From this point of view the ages doesn't look great. I think the best solution is to make "combined" civilization. Like if you start Rome and switch to Mongolia, you're Roman-Mongolian now. No mechanical changes, just remove the culture disappearance element.

P.S. Reminds me of the story with X-Com, where some player faced operation "Crystal Night" in Germany, but Firaxis fixed it by just disallowing this name combination. Here it's more complex.

 

[Krajzen]

I wouldn't call devs Firaxis devs "racist" or anything, as that is obviously insane, but civ switching system may be particularly prone to unpleasant implications if they make NA tribes "historically" turn into US et cetera.

Personally I think it's really miserable from the perspective of postcolonial critique (E. Said etc) that this game may unwittingly play into popular perception of Africa as continent full of fundamentally similar cultures, just one step from being a "country" or some sort of monolith. Many people are somehow convinced that it's "historical" if say Songhai turns into Buganda. No it is not, those peoples have absolutely nothing in common with each other, they are separated by thousands of kilometres, separate languages and language groups, religions, genes and physionomy, daily customs, sociopolitical systems, everything. Africa is so big and so diverse that I guarantee the vast majority of African cultures added to the game are going to make absolutely zero sense as "historical" transitions from one to another. As strange as it sounds, I would seriously argue that Buganda is as ahistorical transition from Songhai as Russia. The only thing they have in common is sharing Africa and featuring black people - awkward notion!

NA tribes may end up with a similar problem. Oh sure it kinda feels fitting that you go from Missisipi culture to Irowuis and Lakota or whatever, but this is also absolutely not historical as these were all extremely different peoples. So functionally we end one or two steps from the notion of "Native American civ" - now it's this association "eh these peoples of NA or Africa are all culturally close enough to all work as transitory steps from one to another"

 

[Arcaian]

Sparta and Athens had hugely differences. No one would suggest they were two different "civilizations".

The peoples of Sparta and Athens obviously share substantial similarities, given the same language, ethnic background, constant contact and communication, hugely overlapping cultures, etc. They differed in governmental structure, but there are clearly a huge amount of similarities. I'd originally interpreted your comment as being in support of having a civilization that unites all indigenous people in the US, but I think you may instead be saying that the Civ4 Native American civ represented only a subset of these peoples, and that subset was justifiably a civilization. Is that correct? If not, what similarities are there between the Choctaw, Navajo, and Chinook nations that aren't just their being indigenous to the Americas? If so, the wiki says that the civilopedia entry for the civ says:

The term "Native American" most often refers to the people who settled in the northern continent of the Western Hemisphere, in the land that is today owned by the United States and Canada. At the time of the arrival of Columbus, thousands of Native American tribes populated the furthest reaches of North America, with somewhere between two and 18 million Natives living in this region. (The "Native American" civilization in the game represents the empire that would have formed had these disparate people ever united.)

That seems pretty clear to me that the civ was attempting to represent all indigenous people to North America.

 

[Zaarin]

Sparta and Athens had hugely differences. No one would suggest they were two different "civilizations".

Bad example. Try Sparta and Chang'an.

Their cultures barely survive (I'd argue that Maya and Shawnee "culture" isn't really alive anymore in any significant way).

I don't have a lot of context for the Shawnee, but Maya cultures are alive and well. It took the Spanish a couple centuries to conquer them, and they're still resisting colonization with more success than probably any other indigenous people group.

 

[Krikkit1]

Part of the issue is the craziness of the times, with people choosing to take grievous offense at anything and acting as if everyone should care.

Another part is that the term "Civilization" is understood by everyone... while having no common definition.
For instance, I find it odd to have French, English, Spanish, German "civilizations".
They're all essentially the same.
Their nations have different histories, but their differences in culture, core values, political systems, technological levels are so minor that they should be dumped together imo into a "Western (European) Civilization".
The "Native Americans" may have had different "nations", but they were close enough that grouping them into a common "civilization" wasn't anything to take offense at.

In all honesty, Firaxis should have kept the "Civilization" pool restricted to ancient civilizations.
After all, modern "civilizations" have evolved from them, and in a game meant to cover the whole of human history, it makes sense to start... from the start.
There should be no "American", "Swedish", "Australian", "Polish" civilizations.

With Civ VII introducing "Ages" and civilization swaps , later civilizations could have been introduced. But again, the confusion between notions of "civilization", "nation", "ethnicity" is one that should have been avoided.
But I guess that ship has sailed a long time ago...

By that argument you should have 3 maybe 4 civs
Eurasia
Subsahara
America
(possibly Australia/Oceania)

 

[Verdant]

At the end of the day this is a game that takes historical elements and tries to produce gameplay from it. History was messy and there will be no clean way to divvy up civ representation so eveyone's happy. Even if you have representation you might not appreciate the way it's depicted.

At least OP has the option of picking the Shawnee and wiping out the British during the Exploration age, if he feels so inclined.

No matter what civs we end up starting with though, I'm sure FXS has plans to add many more. Wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with 30+ options per age in a few years, after all the expansions and DLC packs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And I don't think Firaxis meant to include under the "Native Americans" umbrella all the pre-colombian civs that have foulrished, lived, and died in that territory in the past 10,000 years. The name they chose for that civilization was a mistake ("First Nations" would have been more appropriate?), though.

The term "Native American" is used in the U.S. is an umbrella term for all the tribes located in U.S./Canada. The term "First Nations" at primarily used by Canada. The name wasn't the problem, it was the lumping of all of them together. It would have been better if they had just made a single tribe as a civ.

At least OP has the option of picking the Shawnee and wiping out the British during the Exploration age, if he feels so inclined.

But they were allies.
Honestly, I'm not surprised this concern popped up as soon as I saw they were an Exploration Age civ. I doubt it would have happened if they were chosen as a Modern Age civ where they could be contemporary with the British and America.

 

[Verdant]

But they were allies. Honestly, I'm not surprised this concern popped up as soon as I saw they were an Exploration Age civ. I doubt it would have happened if they were chosen as a Modern Age civ where they could be contemporary with the British and America.

My mistake, I don't know **** about history. Whether or not there is a contextually appropriate opponent for him to eliminate, he can play out history in ways that didn't actually happen for his chosen civilization.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

My mistake, I don't know horsehocky about history. Whether or not there is a contextually appropriate opponent for him to eliminate, he can play out history in ways that didn't actually happen for his chosen civilization.

It's okay. I edited it because I meant saying that jokingly.
But yes, during the War of 1812 the Shawnee and the British allied themselves against the U.S. if you didn't know.

 

[Wabnosa]

The Shawnee exist in bands today. Im typing this about 15 miles from one. They still live, in that good way. You would never know unless you were friends or family. There is alot culture wise in some tribes that the greater world has no clue about. Its a full schedule.

Some, elders dont like this game because it makes colonization fun. They believe it is a great evil, and it is. But I see it as free will. The individual makes his or her choices. Even Civ 6 gives you alternate ways to act.

Its fine, Firaxis is doing a good job representing the culture in a good way. Its getting better every time. Just let me keep my civ, if i want problem solved. You already have good unit art. Just give uncle an m4.

 

[UWHabs]

The Shawnee exist in bands today. Im typing this about 15 miles from one. They still live, in that good way. You would never know unless you were friends or family. There is alot culture wise in some tribes that the greater world has no clue about. Its a full schedule.

Some, elders dont like this game because it makes colonization fun. They believe it is a great evil, and it is. But I see it as free will. The individual makes his or her choices. Even Civ 6 gives you alternate ways to act.

Its fine, Firaxis is doing a good job representing the culture in a good way. Its getting better every time. Just let me keep my civ, if i want problem solved. You already have good unit art. Just give uncle an m4.

Rome exists as a city today, and obviously there's a modern Egypt, and certainly if you go to Mexico you will see Mayan culture on display. I definitely hope that civs in the transition keep enough of their history that they will feel "Shawnee-American", and that will give you a very different feel than another civ who is "Aztec-American".

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Its fine, Firaxis is doing a good job representing the culture in a good way. Its getting better every time. Just let me keep my civ, if i want problem solved. You already have good unit art. Just give uncle an m4.

I think they've done a good job at representing them in game, and the one who wrote the complaint agreed. They just aren't onboard with the mandatory switch to a more Modern Age civ, which is understandable.

I definitely hope that civs in the transition keep enough of their history that they will feel "Shawnee-American", and that will give you a very different feel than another civ who is "Aztec-American".

You just got me thinking about the mindset of the developers and how many places in America are already named from words used by the Native Americans. Maybe this was their intention? This is assuming that a default path of the Shawnee does evolve into America.

 

[Pedro P]

If there is no keeping a civ into the next age even if you don't get new bonuses (as some interviews have been suggesting) then it's a bit of a disaster.

And it's incredibly ironic too. A producer was gloating about how the system would make every civ Multi Cultural, wether you like it or not.

Yet the result may be one of the most chauvinistic systems in Civ since Civilization 4 had the brilliant idea of adding names like Kazaks, Lybians, Cherokee, Bantu, Assyrians to the cultureless, diplomacyless Barbarian Cities whose purpose was to be killed on sight.

And it still doesn't even make all civs multicultural because they are already teasing that after some DLC you will be able to pick Japan in the three eras. And someone aiming for America can easily go Celt - England - America, or even the odd Rome - England - America.

Meanwhile those picking a pre-Columbian civ are at high risk of being thrown under the bus and having colonial nations as their "modern upgrade"

 

[fantsu]

Another strawman. No one is asking for Civilization to be a strict 1:1 simulation of history/reality and strict historical accuracy isn't even what is being complained about nesecarilly in the OP or in this topic/thread.

Yes. A strawman. Even I dont want it to be simulation of reality. Native Americans always had a strong representation in Civ. Its a nod and peace pipe for their legacy. Much more than actual cultural world history tells.
And I have always loved how much these games have taught me about these tribes. And how much flavor they have bought to Sid Meiers games. Not just Sitting bull as a leader in many, but like Tupi, Iroquois, Apaches, Arawaks, Incans or Aztecs and so on in general. So much, that on the other side of the world I have hungered to learn more and pay respects to these traditions.

In general I just find reddit to be a place to whine about details that would be probably be explained better in civilopedia or something like that.
Not any culture in entertainment media is 100% accurate, they always stereotypes things from a age long institutes where true inviduals always existed. And playing vidro games should be just a innocent fun times where no one should get angry. Its like teaching a kid how to lose without screaming. And most of the times you are not losing if you just bring some passion what you are doing in 4X games, or any board wargames of the past that Civilization borrows from.

Its just so black and white all of the sudden. Suddenly playing Civilization-video game destroys heritage or hurts days gone past, is political, is offensive or so on. I think its silly.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

I do feel I need to point out, once again, that the idea of one culture "ascending" to another, is largely very euro-centric. Normans, Visigoths and Gauls may not exist any longer, but the Shawnee still do. Assyrians still do. The only reason Mauryans don't exist any longer is because they were a dynasty, not a national identity.

That's another thing: national identity is a very recent concept, so there's something to be said about how playing as a unified people before the invention of nationalism, is apocryphal to the point of the game series misinforming the masses about human history. Perhaps there should really only be one playable civilization: the human civilization, and the player should act more as a literal god than a political leader

 

[Paisley_Trees]

I’m Persian. I do not anticipate Iran making it in as a Modern civ. At best I’d get an Antiquity Persian civ and an Exploration Age Persian civ. Is that a holistic view of the entirety of my mother’s culture? No, it’s not. Is it a problem for me? No, it isn’t. Ultimately, the cultures we come from have had more significance in certain years over others. So, personally, for me, no, it’s a non issue.

Frankly, I was much more offended by Civ VI’s characterization as Cyrus– someone I know to be a tolerant, even benevolent conqueror– as a backstabbing warmonger who loves backstabbing and stabbing backs. But, again, the civs in these games are meant to fill roles. Whether in gameplay or character archetype. So it’s water off my back.

I am also Persian and I think there isn't exactly an equivalent of what the Shawnee tribe member is speaking about, since the colonization of native americans is an ongoing crisis - you can for example look at current supreme court rulings about land sovereignty and on going cases of water rights. BUT if I were to make an equivalent, it would be like if the path of Persia was Persia -> Abbasids -> Saudi Arabia. I really want to make clear I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, and I'm not trying to flame hatred between Persians and Arabs, but it would probably upset some people if the game says this is the correct "historical choice". It also implies that Persia went extinct with the Arab conquest, which actually was a direct claim from the old civilopedia that I read when I was doing research for my youtube videos. Already, I saw some civ youtubers who don't know much about history try to argue the civ transition from ancient Egypt to Songhai is the "natural progression", and that it is historically correct. So the issue here is that the game is being didactic, it is saying to its players who may have very little historical knowledge that this civ transition was a historical reality. That is why while I agree with you I don't need to see Persia -> Safavid -> Qajar/Iran to be happy with this game, I do think they need to address the issue of what the civ transitions are claiming and implying, and ultimately teaching people.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I am also Persian and I think there isn't exactly an equivalent of what the Shawnee tribe member is speaking about, since the colonization of native americans is an ongoing crisis - you can for example look at current supreme court rulings about land sovereignty and on going cases of water rights. BUT if I were to make an equivalent, it would be like if the path of Persia was Persia -> Abbasids -> Saudi Arabia. I really want to make clear I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, and I'm not trying to flame hatred between Persians and Arabs, but it would probably upset some people if the game says this is the correct "historical choice". It also implies that Persia went extinct with the Arab conquest, which actually was a direct claim from the old civilopedia that I read when I was doing research for my youtube videos. Already, I saw some civ youtubers who don't know much about history try to argue the civ transition from ancient Egypt to Songhai is the "natural progression", and that it is historically correct. So the issue here is that the game is being didactic, it is saying to its players who may have very little historical knowledge that this civ transition was a historical reality. That is why while I agree with you I don't need to see Persia -> Safavid -> Qajar/Iran to be happy with this game, I do think they need to address the issue of what the civ transitions are claiming and implying, and ultimately teaching people.

Oh hey I know you, you made that really good youtube video about this very specific issue from the perspective of someone who has actually studied history

 

[Paisley_Trees]

Oh hey I know you, you made that really good youtube video about this very specific issue from the perspective of someone who has actually studied history

Yes! The term Civ Fanatic totally applies to me and I try to make videos for other history fanatics in this community