Civilization 4 hates Native Americans

[Colonel]

Why does this sound exactly like the "Why doesnt Civ stop being racist thread"

I mean who cares, ITS A GAME, and if you are pissed a civ doesnt get in mod it in I am sure one or more of the great CFC scenerio\animation\unit\whatever else creators will make some fantastic leader heads and units to use for any Civ you want to create.

This is why they should have just put all European civs in and leave everybody else out, screw everybody equally.

 

[Antiochus]

Indeed, and by the way everyone who says "it takes too much time and money to put more civs in the game", should remember that aside from the leader graphics it took about half an hour to mod a new civ into Civ3 from scratch.

All they'd need to do is skin a unique unit and make a leader portrait.

Anyone who thinks its not about making money from an X-pack is kidding themselves. I suspect we will see Native Americans (as well as Babylonians) there.

 

[Nyvin]

Indeed, and by the way everyone who says "it takes too much time and money to put more civs in the game", should remember that aside from the leader graphics it took about half an hour to mod a new civ into Civ3 from scratch.

All they'd need to do is skin a unique unit and make a leader portrait.

Anyone who thinks its not about making money from an X-pack is kidding themselves. I suspect we will see Native Americans (as well as Babylonians) there.

Probably true, I can see them in the meeting room right now:

"Well, we plan on saving the other cultures like scandinavia, babylon, and 'Chereokee' for an expansion pack that we'll release later, this will probably be a good thing to market so more people will buy them..."

Lol, it's become an old game now.

 

[trotskylite]

Indeed, and by the way everyone who says "it takes too much time and money to put more civs in the game", should remember that aside from the leader graphics it took about half an hour to mod a new civ into Civ3 from scratch.

All they'd need to do is skin a unique unit and make a leader portrait.

Anyone who thinks its not about making money from an X-pack is kidding themselves. I suspect we will see Native Americans (as well as Babylonians) there.

so are you suggesting they haven't playtested the civs they've chosen at all?

 

[Antiochus]

so are you suggesting they haven't playtested the civs they've chosen at all?

Obviously they have, but since all civs can access all units plus their unique units only - the only extra testing they'd need to do was play a few games to make sure the new UU wasn't bugged...and make sure the leader portrait was ok. Aside from that stick in a few unique advisor comments, a civilopedia entry, and away you go.

 

[Wlauzon]

It would have been nice, but I think the exclusion is fair. Unlike most other civs, Native Americans were nomadic and never built anything that stood the test of time, like say, the Mayans to the south.

The oldest continuously occupied city in the US is a Hopi village in Arizona - Oraibi, which dates from 1150 AD...

Try again.

 

[colontos]

As for the Spanish (in general) they treated the natives much better then their protestant counterparts further north.

Wow, dead wrong there. The Protestants drove the native Americans out and warred against them, but in general they stayed away from torture and mutilation, which were favorite pastimes of the Spanish.

 

[colontos]

Ok, not to be too insensitive here, but it seems like a lot of people have nothing to do but whine about the fact that *fill-in-the-blank* isn't in, and it's the worst when they're talking about groups that honestly were never to exert major influence. Sub-saharan Africa and native North America just did not influence other countries in an important enough way. You can lecture me about Mali gold and the size of the Iroquois confederacy, but the facts remain: historically speaking, the native North Americans' main function was to be an obstacle to colonization. In Civ terms, that warrants barbarian status only. Saying things like 'the Cherokee still own land' or 'the longest occupied blah blah blah is a Hopi village...' That's cute, and I'm real happy for 'em, but is that really all that impressive? What's the population on that village there? Congrats to the Cherokee for owning land, but did they carve that out for themselves and defend it successfully? No. Fact is they only have it through charity and liberal guilt.

There are less than 20 civs in Civ 4. That isn't nearly enough to include all the really powerful civs, and crowding it up with civs that, sorry, didn't matter, only obscures the history that's really important. If a civ had land to themselves for 3000 years and all they have to show for it are some mounds of dirt and bone and nice bead necklaces, well, that's not exactly the stuff of legend.

Flame away.

 

[troytheface]

yes but the spanish coverted them to christianity before torturing them so they were really nicer cause then the native american's souls were saved. Western countries can do the same now and make sure that all corpses are democratic.

A barbarian expansion pack (Apache, Vikings, Mongols, ect) that could throw all the tribes/peoples in was once suggested. Course that would leave out Carthage and Assyria and Korea (Vietnam) Turkey ect. which would be nice to have.

I am assuming that "America" includes the Native American population that have been assimiliated. It is much easier for me to imagine playing as America in the ancient era when thinking of them as "indian-pioneer-explorer- peoples."

 

[evirus]

again with these topics listen you people, just because a devloper dosnt include a specific faction or every nation that ever existed does not mean their racist or just plain hate that nation, think about it, rise of nations didnt include america as a country does that mean they hate america? NO

 

[Raggamuffin]

Wow, dead wrong there. The Protestants drove the native Americans out and warred against them, but in general they stayed away from torture and mutilation, which were favorite pastimes of the Spanish.

Depends on what you are referring to. The Spanish weren't all conquistadores. Jesuits for example did not like the English and American missionaries use force to convert the natives. Using the same example but applying it to settlers yields the same result.

 

[Hannabir]

1666 is post-renaisance.

If you say so. That would imply that the golden age of the Iroquois is post-renaissance, too.

 

[Hannabir]

American Indians were emplyed in great numbers in the bulding of some of Americas skyscrapers in the 1930s. I forget the reason why. They had some kind of unique skill

Not 'American Indians', but specifically the Mohawks. They have the unique quality that they do not fear heights.

 

[Hannabir]

Sub-saharan Africa and native North America just did not influence other countries in an important enough way.

If democracy, constitution, naturalism, mercantile revolution, city planning and medicine aren't important - ok.
Same for gold and universities.

You can lecture me about Mali gold and the size of the Iroquois confederacy, but the facts remain: historically speaking, the native North Americans' main function was to be an obstacle to colonization.

Untrue, many native peoples actively helped the colonists for mutual benefit. The plains tribes, which feature in all those western fantasies, were the exception - but that is because they had been driven off their homelands. No, not by the colonists, at least not initially, but by the, you guessed right, Iroquois.

Congrats to the Cherokee for owning land, but did they carve that out for themselves and defend it successfully? No.

The Cherokee moved south after they split away from the Iroquois and had to create room for themselves in an area where there were already other nations. They did so very succesfully, and reached their cultural peak long after the arrival of the colonists.
Even so, empires rise and fall. We don't exclude Rome because at some point their empire was destroyed, do we?

Fact is they only have it through charity and liberal guilt.

Where did you get this ridiculous idea?

 

[thehouse]

The Iroquois taught the Europeans at least three important things: democracy, interplanting, and town planning. The impact of these three are seen everywhere in the modern world, even though we tend to forget much (the Iroquois would never have built New Orleans in that location).

from Wikipedia

By the most minimal, literal definition, a civilization is a complex society. Technically, anthropologists distinguish civilizations in which many of the people live in cities and get their food from agriculture, from band and tribal societies in which people live in small settlements or nomadic groups and subsist by foraging, hunting, or working small horticultural gardens.

The Iroquois did not teach the American's democracy. That statement is just wrong. The english in American know about democracy from the greek, vikings and mostly from english democracy. The Iroquois did not teach the english about city planning they know about that from modern Europe and the romans.

 

[Dearmad]

Well the native americans taught them about the wheel. The native americans invented that!

 

[Nyvin]

from Wikipedia

By the most minimal, literal definition, a civilization is a complex society. Technically, anthropologists distinguish civilizations in which many of the people live in cities and get their food from agriculture, from band and tribal societies in which people live in small settlements or nomadic groups and subsist by foraging, hunting, or working small horticultural gardens.

The Iroquois did not teach the American's democracy. That statement is just wrong. The english in American know about democracy from the greek, vikings and mostly from english democracy. The Iroquois did not teach the english about city planning they know about that from modern Europe and the romans.

The English system was still more of a monarchy then democracy. And even the parliment itself was more aristrocratic and the people in it gained their power more from past generations being in parliement then actual votes.

 

[CivFan91]

Not 'American Indians', but specifically the Mohawks. They have the unique quality that they do not fear heights.

Oh, good, what I said was right.

Come on guys, I can see some of you saying that it's impossible to put all the civs you want into the game. It's true. Even in Civ IV, I imagine it isn't too difficult to ceate your own Civ. But the day that Sid comes out with 192 Civs (the number of actual civs today) is never going to come.

If Sid Mier started today adding in the other 180-something Civs for Civ IV, his youngest son would finish the project for him, because Sid would be dead.

(Yes, Sid is a mortal) Remember that the only native Americans (besides the Aztecs) were the Sioux. I don't remember any complaints there. Not to mention that the Sioux were dropped in Civ III. Again, I remember no complaints.

Many native tribes were nomadic.

That is why natives became Barbarians. The game is not about nomads, in fact it's now impossible. Sorry, but it is a nation building game.

This thread is a "knocker" thread. It does no more than scream "RACIST!" at passersby, making the forums less fun. I must ask the original poster a few questions:

1- What is the purpose of this thread?

It seems to have sparked three discussions: 1) Whether Sid is racist 2) Whether Civ IV is worth buying and 3) The history of Native Americans. I somehow don't believe that you wanted a history discussion.

2- What if your preferred tribe was placed in the game, and America was dropped because of it?

After all, only so many nations can be in the game. So far, the nations in the game have been powerful nations that last a long time. I hate to say it, but wake up. Most Natives are assimilated, and are not a nation anymore.

3- How often would you play that tribe?

I am American, and my ancestors were German. I rarely play those two, because it's fun to play other nations. Are you forgetting that Civ is fun?

If you, kenoyer, respond to this, answer all 3 of those questions, please.

 

[thehouse]

For several years in the 1600's cromwell was the head of a commonwealth and england was ruled by a repersentative government and had no king. Also many colony governments were basically democracies from their founding.

 

[Hannabir]

The Iroquois founded their democracy in 1451 BC. There was only one nation that had a form of democracy before that time: Iceland.

By the most minimal, literal definition, a civilization is a complex society. Technically, anthropologists distinguish civilizations in which many of the people live in cities and get their food from agriculture, from band and tribal societies in which people live in small settlements or nomadic groups and subsist by foraging, hunting, or working small horticultural gardens.

Well, we are not forced to use a minimal definition, and Wikipedia's often have arbitrary content. By this defintion, during many ages there were very few civilizations around in the entire world.

In more essential terms, a civilization is a society where people accomplish more than mere survival: they progress.

The Iroquois did not teach the english about city planning.

Maybe not directly - the English didn't pay much attention for sure - but they taught the Dutch, and the English learned from them. The New York grid was modeled after the Iroquois settlements, for instance.

On June 11, 1776 while the question of independence was being debated, the visiting Iroquois chiefs were formally invited into the meeting hall of the Continental Congress. There a speech was delivered, in which they were addressed as "Brothers" and told of the delegates' wish that the "friendship" between them would "continue as long as the sun shall shine" and the "waters run." The speech also expressed the hope that the new Americans and the Iroquois act "as one people, and have but one heart."[18] After this speech, an Onondaga chief requested permission to give Hancock an Indian name. The Congress graciously consented, and so the president was renamed "Karanduawn, or the Great Tree." With the Iroquois chiefs inside the halls of Congress on the eve of American Independence, the impact of Iroquois ideas on the founders is unmistakable. History is indebted to Charles Thomson, an adopted Delaware, whose knowledge of and respect for American Indians is reflected in the attention that he gave to this ceremony in the records of the Continental Congress.[19] Artwork by John Kahionhes Fadden.

from Exemplar of Liberty, Native America and the Evolution of Democracy,
Chp.8, "A New Chapter, Images of native America in the writings of Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine"