Civilization 4 hates Native Americans

[Inhalaattori]

Native American actually has had profound influences - the American goverment actually drew a lot from the Iroquois ideas in its confederation. While it's prob. more lip service than anything, numerous US states, cities, and town names are all based on Native Americans. At the end, while they lost, the native Americans did put up a fight and I personally think they should be in. Besides, the beauty of civ is also playing a what-if game - what if the Native Americans advanced themselves to fend off against the Europeans.

Yeah. I know all this, becouse I know a lot about Native Americans. I agree that they figth for their culture courageously but Native Americans really didnt have a chance against europeans. They were fighting a battle that was already lost.

Incas, Aztecs and Mayas reach another level of deveplopment. These cultures had big cities, and for example Mayas invented writing, mathematics and astronomy. Inca and Aztec empires were huge in size and both had millions of people.

The reasons why native Americans didnt have a chance against europeans are very complicated. They were quite isolated and didnt have that much animals/plants for taming/improvement. (Jared Diamond says some wise words about these things in his book "Guns, germs and steel".)

 

[dc82]

Yeah. I know all this, becouse I know a lot about Native Americans. I agree that they figth for their culture courageously but Native Americans really didnt have a chance against europeans. They were fighting a battle that was already lost.

The reasons why native Americans didnt have a chance against europeans are very complicated. They were quite isolated and didnt have that much animals/plants for taming/improvement. (Jared Diamond says some wise words about these things in his book "Guns, germs and steel".)

I'm not doubting your knowledge of Native Americans - clearly they were outmatched to the Europeans and Americans. At the same time, though they were beaten, they did play an important role in the development of North America - from trading with early colonial powers to taking sides in the various wars to deterring (at least somewhat) colonization of the West - it still great affected the English, French, Dutch, Russian nations - which all in turn affected the development of the United States, which given its importance would be more of a reason why North American Native Americans should be considered (compared to other aboriginal/native peoples in other continents).

 

[Raggamuffin]

It wasn't their systems of government or traditons or even society. It was the geography of the americas. There wasn't any long continuous stretch of land like in the eurasian-north african landmass (where you'll find about 90% of the civs)

Since they didn't have such a long east to west common ground for trading of lifestyles and farming techinques and such, they didn't develop nearly as quickly as the Eurasians did. If you were to tilt the world to a 90 degree angle, you'd see the america's become the 'old world' and asia and europe the 'new' (going back in time anyway)

It's really wrong to blame the slow development of cultures on their traditions. That's very biased and cruel.

As for Native Americans worth of being included...it should be noted that the Native americans were the most successful plant breeders in the world and their diet was more fullfilling then any where else in the world. The also had one of most efficient trading systems between different groups of people, meaning things were gotten from one area to another quicker then you see elsewhere.

*sigh*

Is it really necessary to throw insults when having a discussion? To me that's just a clear sign that the opponent really has nothing sensible to counter you with. Cruel? In what way? I'm just stating facts, if I had stated that in spite then you could have said what you did, now it just doesn't make any sense.

That east to west statement is rather interesting. I guess that's why the Mayans and Aztecs developed so slow.

Again I'm a huge admirer of the NA cultures, especially the agricultural ones. Socially they had come a much further way that any other cultures on the face of the Earth. The problem, once again, was that they couldn't counter the cruelty and dishonesty that faced them when the Europeans arrived.

If it hadn't been NA:ns kindness and generosity the first settlers would not have survived and the expansion would have been postponed 100-200 years. But state and civ wise the do not belong in Civ.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Dont doubt my knowledge. I have watched Kevin Costners "500 nations".

I admit they had an big impact, but they were very disintegrated and did not form united force that could have prevented europeans from taking their land.

The greatest native american cultures developed in modern Mexico and Peru. I think 99% of historians agree on that. If you dont think that way, its your right to disagree.

 

[Inhalaattori]

That east to west statement is rather interesting. I guess that's why the Mayans and Aztecs developed so slow.

"East to west statement" is very reasonable and is introduced by professor Jared Diamond. This verticality and impenetrable jungles in Central- America/ desert of Northern Mexico did prevent trading between different areas. Incas never knew anything about Mexico and people in Mexico never knew anything about Peru. Farming also would have moved faster to North- America without deserts of Mexico.

Again I'm a huge admirer of the NA cultures, especially the agricultural ones. Socially they had come a much further way that any other cultures on the face of the Earth. The problem, once again, was that they couldn't counter the cruelty and dishonesty that faced them when the Europeans arrived.

Incas and Aztecs were propably not "better" people than europeans as such. Incas used very gruel methods against other peoples of South America. They used methods that could be descriped as ethnic cleansing. Also Aztec ruled with gruelty. In fact these wete thee reasons why europeans could defeat Incas and Aztecs - they had lots of enemies. Pizarro and Cortes both had huge numbers of allies when they made their conquests.

(We must also remember that at least spanish conquerors were often criminals or fortune hunters, not "ordinary europeans")

 

[Volstag]

How many times does this need to be brought up? They can't possibly include every single ethnic group or political entity that's existed throughout the course of human history. In fact, only the TINIEST fraction will ever be in the game. For every "civ" that's added, there's dozens/scores/hundreds that aren't.

And to claim that the game, somehow, hates Native Americans is just... lame.

 

[Inhalaattori]

And to claim that the game, somehow, hates Native Americans is just... lame.

I agree. That`s what I have been trying to say...

 

[The End Is Nigh]

Both the Inca and the Aztecs are in. I honestly can't see where the problem is and why this debate has dragged on for so long!!!

 

[Legionary37]

Native American actually has had profound influences - the American goverment actually drew a lot from the Iroquois ideas in its confederation.

This is something I've heard several times now, however, I frankly have never heard of this before. Can anyone elaborate on it?

 

[bio_hazard]

""East to west statement" is very reasonable and is introduced by professor Jared Diamond. This verticality and impenetrable jungles in Central- America/ desert of Northern Mexico did prevent trading between different areas. Incas never knew anything about Mexico and people in Mexico never knew anything about Peru. Farming also would have moved faster to North- America without deserts of Mexico. "

In defense of Dr. Diamond, this wasn't the only argument as to the 'bonuses' that old world civs had. take for example Domesticated animals. Chickens, Cows, Horses, Pigs, lowland sheep- all old world. Mesoamericans had the turkey, but that domestication came pretty late I think, and I guess highland SA had Llama and guinea pigs (?).
<edit- just saw inhallitori covered some of this earlier>

I'll slightly change the topic here- i heard on another thread that civs would be speaking in their own language. Just wondering what will be used for Inca and aztec? Is quechua (sp?) a modern day equivalent to what the incans spoke? is there any 'aztec' speakers?

 

[Urederra]

Dont doubt my knowledge. I have watched Kevin Costners "500 nations".

Oh... what a wonderful piece of historical evidence.

I haven't watched 500 nations, but I watched Dancing with wolves and Costner is deeply racists in that movie.

I mean, It is cool to hunt with them, dance with them, smoke with them, but, it seems that native american women weren't good enough for him, since he added a difficult to believe story about a white babygirl that got adopted by the tribe just to have a beautiful white woman to sleep with instead of an ulgy native american woman. Native American women are beautiful too, you know, kev. Don't be so racist, sleeping with a Native American would have made the story non-racist.

 

[Pembroke]

Ok, if we want to be _really_really_ purists then let's be so:

Civ is about possibilities, what-ifs, and what-might-have-beens. We start at the dawn of civilization so scratch those French, English, Roman, Egyptian and other modern split-offs and latecomers.

Here's the civs we should have instead:

Hittites
Indo-Iranians
Greek
Italians
Armenians
Germans
Albanians
Slavonians
Tocharians
Celts
Balts

My knowledge about the American early civs is limited so I can't add any of them, but I'm sure someone will now present the Real American Civs. And likewise for Asians and Africans.

Tocharians?? Well, of course. Sure, they didn't amount to much in *our* particular timeline but they were there and who knows? If they had had a better starting location they might have been able to build their world spanning empire...

 

[kryszcztov]

I completely agree that every civ cannot be included, that modding the game can do the trick, that some future X-packs will fill in the gaps...

But seriously, comparing the loss of the Iroquois to the loss of the Babylonians makes me laugh. Plus, there now is a real hole in the Middle East (the Arabs don't make up for it), whereas North America has the Americans anyway.

 

[Wlauzon]

"The problem is that the North American civs were to fragmented and small to be any major factor. None of them really deserves to be in Civ on their own."

Since in Civ all civilizations start out equal, the actual world events are not a factor.

My Native American friend says one of the main reason the tribes were fragmented and small was because of diseases and better technology that the invading eurapeons possesed.

Honestly, he found your comment a bit racist.

Uhm... Your "native American" friend represents one view from one aspect and is is highly unlikely to represent the views of many.

For example, you have your "facts" backwards. The tribes were basically small and fragmented LONG before the Europeans ever arrived - in fact that is one of the major factors that made it easy for the "invaders" to move in.

The major exceptions were the Aztec and Inca - but even there, they collapsed more from internal problems than from any european invasions. The Aztecs just before the total collapse were sacrificing as many as 10,000 people a DAY to appease the sun god. That is not the kind of thing that makes for a stable workforce to harvest the fields....

And just for the record, I have lived on reservations (Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, Apache), I went to school with members of at least 10 different tribes, my brother is married to a Navajo girl, and I currently live about 2 miles from the Pima and Gila reservations. So I probably am a bit more tuned in to that subject than someone that has a single "native American friend". (and BTW, almost no American Indians use the term "native American". They almost always refer to themselves as "Indians" or by their tribe name).

Of course none of this has much to do with CIV4 directly except to point out some possible reasons why the Iriquois or others were not included.

 

[troytheface]

Read some criticsm of "Guns Germs and Steel" as it sounded like an interesting book. It is still the same environment vs hereditary arguements. But even the critics give the writer credit for being the best of the evolutionary biologist physiologists writing on the subject.
One thing i question would be maybe more adventerous types went in search of different animals or land ect. and that would mean biological selection taking place over time.

 

[Hannabir]

Yeah. I know all this, becouse I know a lot about Native Americans.

Sorry, but it doesn't sound that way.

I agree that they figth for their culture courageously but Native Americans really didnt have a chance against europeans.

You missed the part where 90% of their population died from the diseases the Europeans introduced to the area.

Even so, the Iroquois confederacy grew in power despite and in fact because of the arrival of the Europeans. They quickly had the most musketmen around, and during centuries, they had the military power to remove all the newcomers, but they choose not to do so because it was not in their interest. The downfall of the league was that, when the settlers fought for independency, the Iroquois found themselves torn apart, bound by promises they had made to both sides. So, Iroquois fought Iroquois. This weakened them considerably and they lost the control over many of their hunting territories.
Nonetheless, in contrast to most other native nations, they were never conquered by the Europeans, just crowded. The league still exists today, with their own government, judicial system, borders, flag and passport.

Incas, Aztecs and Mayas reach another level of deveplopment. These cultures had big cities, and for example Mayas invented writing, mathematics and astronomy. Inca and Aztec empires were huge in size and both had millions of people.

Numbers as such mean little, or many civ tribes should be excluded. How many people do you think lived in ancient Greece?

The advances of Writing, Mathematics and Astronomy were known in North America as well. Hiawatha timed the beginning of the League so that the ceremony coincided with a solar eclipse. Many peoples used hieroglyphs, and later their own alphabet.

They were quite isolated and didnt have that much animals/plants for taming/improvement.

They were not isolated - the America's are quite large enough all by themselves - and had plenty of animals and plants. By the time the settlers became a threat, the natives had tamed the horse.

Native agriculture was in ways more advanced and efficient than European agriculture. The Europeans learned a lot about agriculture from them and brought home many new techs, like interplanting, plants and animals. Even today, there is an Israeli project where they learn how to irrigate the desert from the Hopi.

 

[Raggamuffin]

Incas and Aztecs were propably not "better" people than europeans as such. Incas used very gruel methods against other peoples of South America. They used methods that could be descriped as ethnic cleansing. Also Aztec ruled with gruelty. In fact these wete thee reasons why europeans could defeat Incas and Aztecs - they had lots of enemies. Pizarro and Cortes both had huge numbers of allies when they made their conquests.

(We must also remember that at least spanish conquerors were often criminals or fortune hunters, not "ordinary europeans")

Since they are in I wasn't talking about them and from what I understand the discussion was about the Native Americans of USA and Canada. I was of course referring to those. As for the Spanish (in general) they treated the natives much better then their protestant counterparts further north.

 

[thehouse]

The only reason the Iroquois became powerful is that they were the first group in the region to make contact with Europeans interested in trade and not conquest. They quickly became completely dependant on europeans for everything. Without european trade goods they fell apart. But must importantly the Game is called Civilization which means city. Iroquois had none. In fact in 4000bc when you build your first city it would be a larger city then the iroquois ever lived in.

 

[Crayton]

Navajo. They had cities. Or was it... the Anazasi, Hopi, Apache? Remember those Pueblos? They've excavted abandoned cities in the Mojave and found evidence that they traded with people groups from modern British Columbia, Illinois, and Mexico! I would've liked to see one representative civ from native, temparate America. Unless the game creators shift their focus away from the past 500 years, 'Western' civilization will always be heavily represented.

 

[Hannabir]

The Anasazi and their descendents the pueblo tribes, like the Hopi, had houses. So had the Iroquois and many other peoples.
Except for Cahokia there were no cities though. Not for lack of culture or knowledge, but because the land simply could not support them. However, in Europe it was not that different. There were more prime locations where cities could be supported but most towns there had a few thousand inhabitants max, too. And even in a huge city like London almost all houses were of poor quality and lasted less long than a longhouse.

The Iroquois did not depend on the beaver trade, but rather their control of the trade made them call the shots. Whichever European country gave them the best deal for their hides, gained a lot in their rivalry among each other. That's what a century of beaver wars was all about. In addition, the Iroquois were the suppliers of the currency in the region. Wampum was used by everyone.

The French tried to take away the Iroquois control by allying with the Algonquin, but the Iroquois kept beating them. And thus the English expanded, and not the French.