Indigenous Consultation - Shawnee

[Krikkit1]

*Sigh* Why are the Shawnee consulted but not the Italians, Greek, French, Germans, English and Americans?

All of them want to have their civs being depicted in a cool & great way? What makes the Shawnee different from Italians?

There are way more Italians than Shawnee.
Which means

-Much more variation in opinion among Italians on how their history should be portrayed (some would want Moussolini)

-Background knowledge of Italian history is easier to get (most people know about Moussolini)

-Knowledge of what Italian’s think of their history is easier to get (Most people know that “most” Italians probably aren’t happy about Mussolini)

So we probably won’t have a game with Mussolini leading Italy unless it’s one focusing on the WW2 era (either actually or that social situation)

 

[bite]

this is definitely something I don’t agree with, especially with indigenous people, who historically have had their own historical narratives wiped out and replaced by colonial fanfiction of how “the natives were weak and uncivilized, so we wiped them out”

there’s also a very common trend, especially in the US, for indigenous north americans to be stereotyped a single way—headdress, teepee, powwow, military ppl, etc. Consulting with elders and experts is often necessary to unlearn these stereotypes.

not to mention more insidious and less well known forms of ethnic cleansing like residential schools, which often find their way into these types of games through erasure of language and culture in popular knowledge. so consultation is necessary here

These are some very good points

 

[AntSou]

*Sigh* Why are the Shawnee consulted but not the Italians, Greek, French, Germans, English and Americans?

I mean, there's only a few thousand of them. There's millions of Italians. Who are Firaxis supposed to speak with, the Italian government?

Perhaps a more reasonable analogue in the West would be the Manx people, or the Sami. It doesn't sound strange to me if Firaxis were to extend the same courtesy to them.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Tupac Amaru II lead an Aymara and Quechua rebelion at the 1780's so considering the liberties they are taking for the modern civ this could work for the Aymara as the Modern civ after the Exploration Incas (Quechuas).

Mapuche are also a South American option that were independent until late 19th century, but I think they represent their own region.

Tupac Amaru II would make an amazing civ leader. He fits the big personality bill.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I mean, there's only a few thousand of them. There's millions of Italians. Who are Firaxis supposed to speak with, the Italian government?

Perhaps a more reasonable analogue in the West would be the Manx people, or the Sami. It doesn't sound strange to me if Firaxis were to extend the same courtesy to them.

I’m sure if the Manx or Sami (or Ainu) were considered for the game, they would be. reaching out to a tribal leadership is no different than reaching out to scholars or reading books about the history of a more well-understood and researched peoples.

Hell, weren’t there rumors that Firaxis had reached out to Akan leadership in the past? And that’s a major ethnic group in Ghana. It’s just like, this is part of research for a project that is attempting to be respectful and understanding of history and the cultures depicted.

I genuinely don’t know why there’s so much pushback for that in this thread.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I’m sure if the Manx or Sami (or Ainu) were considered for the game, they would be. reaching out to a tribal leadership is no different than reaching out to scholars or reading books about the history of a more well-understood and researched peoples.

Hell, weren’t there rumors that Firaxis had reached out to Akan leadership in the past? And that’s a major ethnic group in Ghana. It’s just like, this is part of research for a project that is attempting to be respectful and understanding of history and the cultures depicted.

I genuinely don’t know why there’s so much pushback for that in this thread.

Unfortunately, I think we all know why.

 

[ls612]

Should any culture have the right to veto a depiction of their culture? Isn't that what this boils down to?

 

[Krikkit1]

Should any culture have the right to veto a depiction of their culture? Isn't that what this boils down to?

Not legally. However, Firaxis is wise to look for alternatives ie Shoshone instead of Pueblo. (indeed the initial consultations could ask several separate groups in an area to see which ones would be interested)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Should any culture have the right to veto a depiction of their culture? Isn't that what this boils down to?

the answer is yes. but unlike indigenous peoples, large mainstream cultures don’t risk being portrayed in a way that would damage their image, nor do they tend to have mainstream cultural orgs dedicated to teaching about their history and culture like most indigenous cultures do.

 

[GeoGeo]

Per the Pax West panel, it seems like the the Shawnee could become America in the Modern Age as a "Regional Choice" rather than a "Historical Choice". That sidesteps some of the concerns around a colonization narrative, as long as it's consistent other regional choices.

So what are the options for a historical choice? For that matter, what potential indigenous North American Civs would fit the Modern Age rather than the Exploration Age?

 

[Zaarin]

So what are the options for a historical choice? For that matter, what potential indigenous North American Civs would fit the Modern Age rather than the Exploration Age?

In other threads there's been speculation about Modern Age Lakota, but the wider interpretation of "Modern Age" implied by Modern Mughals changes things considerably (and makes Exploration Age Shawnee a little confusing). At this point, I'm sort of expecting Mississippians > Shawnee > Lakota to be the historic chain.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

In other threads there's been speculation about Modern Age Lakota, but the wider interpretation of "Modern Age" implied by Modern Mughals changes things considerably (and makes Exploration Age Shawnee a little confusing). At this point, I'm sort of expecting Mississippians > Shawnee > Lakota to be the historic chain.

Since Shawnee are a pre-order bonus Civ, it's possible there's a second Exploration Age option.

 

[bbbt]

*Sigh* Why are the Shawnee consulted but not the Italians, Greek, French, Germans, English and Americans?

I'm pretty sure that Firaxis is already very aware of what depictions of America could bring bad press. Or who/what they can include to get their game banned in say Germany or China. But maybe I'm wrong, and Civ 7 is about to have MLK Jr leading a USA with bonuses towards spying on it's own citizens and invading countries with oil.

Ethical considerations aside, from a marketing perspective, I think there's roughly three buckets in terms of choosing civilizations: Players who want to play as their country. Players who want "the classics". Players who want a diverse set of civs that includes a lot of lesser known and indigenous groups. And I'd guess that last group, and the group of players who would be unhappy to hear complaints from said tribes about their depictions, have a pretty big overlap. So Firaxis would be shooting themselves in the foot otherwise.

On a related note, I'm hoping Firaxis's increasing "cultural sensitivity" in each edition might mean Nuclear Gandhi is finally dead for good in 7.

 

[ls612]

the answer is yes. but unlike indigenous peoples, large mainstream cultures don’t risk being portrayed in a way that would damage their image, nor do they tend to have mainstream cultural orgs dedicated to teaching about their history and culture like most indigenous cultures do.

For me the answer is clearly no. One group doesn't get a veto over another group's cultural production.

On a related note, I'm hoping Firaxis's increasing "cultural sensitivity" in each edition might mean Nuclear Gandhi is finally dead for good in 7.

Would they ever consider making a different leader for India? The subcontinent has 3000 years of recorded history with many famous rulers.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Here’s my WIP rationalization of the shawnee exploration vs. modern era question

Point A: The working "Timeframe" of the Modern era appears to begin at the beginning of the enlightenment/post-renaissance

• Subpoint A: This is implied through the Mughals being a modern civ--the enlightenment is really the last point where they can be considered a major power
• Subpoint B: England being a playable civ, rather than the UK implies that pre-Union England is within this timeframe, meaning that this would be the next best date to begin the timeframe
• Subpoint C: A industrial era start date for the modern era would potentially require two US civs, so an enlightenment start allows them to conserve a slot for say, a 13 colonies civ, by having this earlier start

Point B: Firaxis seems to be prioritizing coherent lines of civ evolution over strict date frames

• Subpoint A: Chola and Mughals were not contemporaries but their peaks could both reasonably fall under the exploration era timeframe. To preserve a coherent evolution but not miss out on a civ they wanted to highlight, the timeframe was flubbed a bit
• Subpoint B: Hopefully/Likely, the same is true of the Shawnee--if the Lakota theory is true, they want to have a throughline of indigenous resistance against colonialism, and therefore, the peak of the Lakota's resistance to the US, 80 years later than the Shawnee's, is able to be highighted in that throguhline

Point C: Outlying Issues

• Subpoint A: At the moment, England to US is an unlikely evolution, which feels quite an oversight, since that should be a stellar example of what this mechanic wants to achieve
• Subpoint B: The idea that expansions might realign civs to new eras, or create "personas" for civs in different eras is still potentially on the table. Therefore, we could eventually get a modern shawnee, an exploration england, so on and so forth.
• Subpoint C: No exploration era US in any capacity means that the throughline of indigenous resistance only actually plays out in the modern era. furthermore, without the context of this pairing, the shawnee's militarist bonuses could just seem militarist without any context. It's like Tomyris without Cyrus in civ 6--before the Persia DLC, she didn't have the contexualizing relationship with another civ that made her and Scythia such an interesting civ.

One group doesn't get a veto over another group's cultural production.

Firstly, a culture asking an outside dev team to avoid portraying their culture/portraying their culture in a manner that would not represent their values is not a "veto". the pueblo saying "it's against our religion to depict the dead" is not a veto. it's basic cultural dignity and respect.

Secondly, this happens literally...all the time. In the early 1900s we stopped using harmful stereotypes about germans, irish people and italians because guess what? it was disrespectful and they didn't like it and we as a culture (in America) realized it was a crappy thing to do. Same with certain stereotypes about black people in the 60s and 70s. Stereotyping in general is not socially acceptable anymore, rightfully so, and this doesn't get a pass just because the media in question is made by a different group than the stereotyped group.

Thirdly. Firaxis isn't (or at least doesn't try to be) an "American cultural production". They are trying to highlight world history, not what the dominant culture in America want history to be seen as/percieve history to be as . When the resources to do that don't exist in the wild specifically BECAUSE the dominant culture in America (or canada, or Australia, or new Zealand, so on and so forth) wiped out those records, directly reaching out to the group and consulting them is the best way to do this. It's literally no different than consulting Heradotus's understanding of Ancient Greece or Pliny the Elder's understanding of Rome. We actually have these cultures still around, and because their histories were wiped out because of colonialism, the historical texts don't exist for us to reference.

 

[Krikkit1]

Would they ever consider making a different leader for India? The subcontinent has 3000 years of recorded history with many famous rulers.

Well now the 3000 years of history is spread out among 3 ?or more? civs with a non Gandhi leader for one of them.

If they do get a modern India, it should be willing to back its words with nuclear weapons (maybe not as eager to use), Although I would probably also have that as an alternative Persona for Gandhi (Civil v. Disobedience)

 

[ls612]

Thirdly. Firaxis isn't (or at least doesn't try to be) an "American cultural production". They are trying to highlight world history, not what the dominant culture in America want history to be seen as/percieve history to be as . When the resources to do that don't exist in the wild specifically BECAUSE the dominant culture in America (or canada, or Australia, or new Zealand, so on and so forth) wiped out those records, directly reaching out to the group and consulting them is the best way to do this. It's literally no different than consulting Heradotus's understanding of Ancient Greece or Pliny the Elder's understanding of Rome. We actually have these cultures still around, and because their histories were wiped out because of colonialism, the historical texts don't exist for us to reference.

For American natives they had not developed full written languages pre-European contact (in contrast to the Aztec farther south who certainly had). So that would explain the lack of historical texts, all they had was oral history.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

For American natives they had not developed full written languages pre-European contact (in contrast to the Aztec farther south who certainly had). So that would explain the lack of historical texts, all they had was oral history.

many of those oral histories were lost when native elders were killed, smallpox was spread, the languages wiped out through residential schools, etc.

There are intact oral histories around the world, when i mean indigenous peoples often don't control their historical texts anymore I don't just becuase they didn't necessarily have it written down at the time. The standard non-academic historical understanding often revolves around whatever the settlers said was true, not necessarily what *was* true. The standard academic historical understandings have only recently accepted surviving oral histories as potentially being something other than myths.

A game which has history at the core of its flavor and has made a commitment to being an educational tool kinda has the responsibility to actually dig deeper than just accepting the colonist's history as being true when that's very evidently dissprovable.

 

[Zaarin]

Also, many early historians scoffed at oral histories, but modern research has found oral history frequently to be very reliable.

 

[ls612]

Also, many early historians scoffed at oral histories, but modern research has found oral history frequently to be very reliable.

My point was that they don't leave texts behind for future generations of archaeologists to find the way the Greeks and the Romans did.