Iroquois Issues

Sanbox

Chieftain
Joined
May 16, 2013
Messages
3
Location
Los Angeles
Alright, so I think the Iroquois already have a lot of issues on their own, regardless of their extreme historical inaccuracy. I'm a history major with a concentration in Pre-Columbian and Early North American studies at Wesleyan University in CT to give myself some credibility, though a simple google search should confirm most of this.

We'll start at the beginning--Iroquois is an Algonquian word that basically means evil killer people. This is because the Algonquian (the Micmaq, the Ojibwe, most of the aboriginals in Canada) isn't a nation state: it's a collection of people speaking similar languages. This is similar to how Germans were referred to before the unification of the modern German state in the late 1800s. The Iroquois word for the Five/Six Nation Iroquois is Haudenosaunee.

This word was introduced by the Great Peacemaker, who was NOT Hiawatha. Hiawatha was his principle follower. Moreover, the Five/Six-Nation Iroquois aren't a nation state--at best, one could called them a loose confederacy, but most would argue that what the Great Peacemaker really accomplished was closer to a pact of non-aggression between the nation states, not a pact of unity (though there is some debate about this: Haudenosaunee means Longhouse people, which implies everyone should live together).

No matter what though, here are some more specific Civ issues:

The Iroquois cut down the trees around. The idea of them running through the forest is European racism. Of course, of course, they lived in a far more forested environment than the white colonizers (still though, it's telling that the perspective of the game says that the most interesting thing about the Iroquois is how much they didn't live like Europeans), but they lived in a deforested villages and traveled through clearings and cleared trails when traveling.
If there wasn't anything better for a UA, then this would be fine. Except the biggest thing that makes the Iroquois so interesting, and the reason we think of them as being bloodthirsty, is because they had a concept called the Mourning War. Essentially, the spiritual balance (the Micmaq called it manitou) was not balanced when someone died, for ANY reason (disease was from evil spirits). Thus, they had to be replaced. So they went on Mourning Wars, where they would take an enemy and then make them a captive. Most of the time, they would be ritually tortured to death by the entire village, but if they stood the torture well, joking and taunting their torturers, they were normally cut apart and then eaten by the entire village in a stew to gain his courage. But, sometimes they were taken as replacements, given the dead person's new name, and take on their identity, becoming a member of the community. Of course, when they went on these Mourning Wars, people died. This set off a vicious warlike cycle, one of the causalities being the Huron people who were essentially massacred into becoming a sixth member. THIS, was what the Great Peacemaker solved--he made the Five Nations, which were five tribes of Iroquois agree to giving gifts to repay the dead instead of going to war.
Thus, I think a FAR more useful Iroquois UA would be something along the idea of Prize Ships but with land units. To make it anything higher than a 15% probability would make it far too powerful though, but it does capture the basic idea. It could also be incorporated by keeping the current UA (which is nearly entirely useless by the Industrial Era in most games and only originally useful if one is EXTREMELY lucky) and then changing the UU.
This leads me to my second issue: the Mohawk Warrior. Besides randomly picking one of the Five Nations based only on their name-brand recognition, the Mohawk Warrior depicted uses traditional weapons. These guys got slaughtered en masse by the English. However, the Iroquois warriors DID become fear, especially by the French and their allies in New Canada, when they began using firearms. It would simply make for sense for them to replace the Musketman. Moreover, it achieves historical parity with America's Minuteman, who existed at the same time.

Anyway, that's my thing with the Iroquois. There's more, but that's where I'm at.

Thanks for reading such a long and probably rambling first post!
 
The idea of them running through the forest is European racism.

Please don't call it racism. It may be prejudiced, but it's a cultural stereotype, not racially based. I'm not fond of people using racism as a catch-all for any particular stereotype or prejudice.

Other than that this was a highly interesting read.
 
Well, you are picking specifics of what were 5 nations, not all 5 nation tribes did that. Granted instead of iroquois they should be called the 5 nations or Iroquois Confederacy and really, the great plains Indians were more organized and dangerous (mainly due to the fact that they had time, since they heard all the stories of what happend to the Eastern Indians as well as get ahold of some firearms).

The Indians did, in general, move through the woods well and used hit-and-run tactics. So I think you go too far when you say that is racist or even cultural biased, they were actually great at that. In fact, it is what the original American rebels used because they had seen how effective it was.

Anyways, not a place to discuss/debate history. How about we just call them 'Elves' and be done with it.
 
Well as you said you are a history major. I think from a developers pov it is far more convenient to call them Iroqouis, give them a UA & UU that satisfies the majority of players idea and call it a day.
Im a law major and never heard of courts that have the ability to stop riots. There always has to be a balance between gamedesign & historical accuracy.

Why do you call it European racism anyways, when Firaxis is located in Maryland? :confused:
 
They address the naming issue in the civiliopedia:

"Members of the Iroquois Nation call themselves "Haudenosaunee," which translates roughly as "People Building a Long House." The term "Iroquois" was used by non-Iroquois. Its original meaning is unclear, but it may be a bastardization of a Huron word meaning "snake." (The Hurons and the Iroquois did not much like each other.) Alternatively, it might be a corruption of a Basque (Spanish/French ethnic group) term meaning, "killer people." (The French didn't much like the Confederacy either.)

With apologies to the Haudenosaunee we will use the more common term, "Iroquois," because few non-natives would recognize Haudenosaunee - and because Haudenosaunee is too long to fit on the game screen. For similar reasons we have chosen to use the name "Hiawatha" for the Iroquois leader rather than "Ayonwentah" (see below)."
 
I agree with some of this but there is definitely no racism in the game.

Is calling the French more cultured than others racist?
Is saying part of the German army is made of barbarians racist?
Is saying the modern Japanese still follow bushido racist?

It's historical stereotyping which is basically what civ is.
 
I think that yes, civ sometimes stereotypes, it's kinda to have the game be an exact repeating of history. the point of civ is to simulate, not teach, history. So if you are really going to whine about historical inaccuracies, then go play somethng else.
 
Alright, so I think the Iroquois already have a lot of issues on their own, regardless of their extreme historical inaccuracy. I'm a history major with a concentration in Pre-Columbian and Early North American studies at Wesleyan University in CT to give myself some credibility, though a simple google search should confirm most of this.

We'll start at the beginning--Iroquois is an Algonquian word that basically means evil killer people. This is because the Algonquian (the Micmaq, the Ojibwe, most of the aboriginals in Canada) isn't a nation state: it's a collection of people speaking similar languages. This is similar to how Germans were referred to before the unification of the modern German state in the late 1800s. The Iroquois word for the Five/Six Nation Iroquois is Haudenosaunee.

This word was introduced by the Great Peacemaker, who was NOT Hiawatha. Hiawatha was his principle follower. Moreover, the Five/Six-Nation Iroquois aren't a nation state--at best, one could called them a loose confederacy, but most would argue that what the Great Peacemaker really accomplished was closer to a pact of non-aggression between the nation states, not a pact of unity (though there is some debate about this: Haudenosaunee means Longhouse people, which implies everyone should live together).

No matter what though, here are some more specific Civ issues:

The Iroquois cut down the trees around. The idea of them running through the forest is European racism. Of course, of course, they lived in a far more forested environment than the white colonizers (still though, it's telling that the perspective of the game says that the most interesting thing about the Iroquois is how much they didn't live like Europeans), but they lived in a deforested villages and traveled through clearings and cleared trails when traveling.
If there wasn't anything better for a UA, then this would be fine. Except the biggest thing that makes the Iroquois so interesting, and the reason we think of them as being bloodthirsty, is because they had a concept called the Mourning War. Essentially, the spiritual balance (the Micmaq called it manitou) was not balanced when someone died, for ANY reason (disease was from evil spirits). Thus, they had to be replaced. So they went on Mourning Wars, where they would take an enemy and then make them a captive. Most of the time, they would be ritually tortured to death by the entire village, but if they stood the torture well, joking and taunting their torturers, they were normally cut apart and then eaten by the entire village in a stew to gain his courage. But, sometimes they were taken as replacements, given the dead person's new name, and take on their identity, becoming a member of the community. Of course, when they went on these Mourning Wars, people died. This set off a vicious warlike cycle, one of the causalities being the Huron people who were essentially massacred into becoming a sixth member. THIS, was what the Great Peacemaker solved--he made the Five Nations, which were five tribes of Iroquois agree to giving gifts to repay the dead instead of going to war.
Thus, I think a FAR more useful Iroquois UA would be something along the idea of Prize Ships but with land units. To make it anything higher than a 15% probability would make it far too powerful though, but it does capture the basic idea. It could also be incorporated by keeping the current UA (which is nearly entirely useless by the Industrial Era in most games and only originally useful if one is EXTREMELY lucky) and then changing the UU.
This leads me to my second issue: the Mohawk Warrior. Besides randomly picking one of the Five Nations based only on their name-brand recognition, the Mohawk Warrior depicted uses traditional weapons. These guys got slaughtered en masse by the English. However, the Iroquois warriors DID become fear, especially by the French and their allies in New Canada, when they began using firearms. It would simply make for sense for them to replace the Musketman. Moreover, it achieves historical parity with America's Minuteman, who existed at the same time.

Anyway, that's my thing with the Iroquois. There's more, but that's where I'm at.

Thanks for reading such a long and probably rambling first post!

You could call it racism, depending on your definition of racism. At the very least, it is blatant ethnocentrism.

I agree that the civilization series has never done justice to Iroquois civilization. It's difficult to call them even a confederacy. The game uses Onondaga as the capital, but Onondaga was simply a ceremonial capital where the rituals of the Great Peacemaker were performed. There was no concept of coercive state authority in Iroquoia and there was no ability for any one man to force another man into doing something he did not want to do. Members of the tribe had to be persuaded with reason and rhetoric, not by force as is the tradition in Europe. Even in times of war, it was not uncommon that members of the Seneca tribe might support French military expeditions while the Mohawks helped the English. The Iroquois from 17th-18th century existed so far outside traditional European norms, it is difficult to portray them in a game like Civ.

The thing that really annoy about how Civ portrays the Iroquois is the mohawk warrior. In the game, the mohawk warrior replaces the swordsmen in the classical age, suggesting that the Iroquois warriors were technologically inferior to Europeans when they did the most fighting. That is blatantly false. The Iroquois had been trading furs for guns with the Dutch, French, and eventually English/British since early 1600s. The Iroquois, and most of the Native Americans connected to the gun trade, were the most feared warriors in North America and almost always won in any engagement with Europeans. Any European colony that failed to secure Native American allies was doomed to destruction. To suggest that the Iroquois were technologically inferior by giving them a unique unit in the classical age when it clearly deserves to be a musket replacement is another form of historical ethnocentrism.

I like the idea for a new UA, but I think it should be something more like "Razing cities increases the population of your cities by 10%." However, I could also see a UA that speaks to the fact that there Iroquois were one of the people able to maintain some form of neutrality between the British and French throughout the late colonial period.

@Sanbox Cool to see another history major. I'm a little surprised that you chose to portray mourning wars as mostly ceremonial ways of acquiring the courage of the captive rather than as a mechanism of replacing lost population. I have read primary sources that mirror your portrayal of the community torture/cannabilism but I have always understood that to be rather rare and done mostly when Iroquois men brought back other men. Much more frequently, they would capture women and children/young adults and induct them into the tribe by giving them the identity of a dead loved one.
 
Or it could just be fun to play like that. If you want history with fidelity, go read a history book.
 
It is tough to balance, civ has always had historical information and all the historical wonders, ect. So bringing up discrepencies is good, just have to temper them because it is a game.

I think the problem is that the 5 nations don't fit well into the way civ is designed. Their overview is more accurate as opposed to the implemented game elements. Plus there is more historical controversy/unknowns as opposed to other civs like a France or England. And even there we have odd game elements like why does England get 2 spies? (basically because they were considered weak in vanilla)
 
Please foregive my rudeness, but I really think it is appropriate. To give myself some credibility first, I am a classical Archeology major (I think it would be called that way in English), but the point is, that in my humble opinion, IT IS JUST A GAME, GROW UP!. A game starts with mechanisms and history gets shoehorned over it, others have already pointed out that other civilizations are portrayed in an equally stereotypical way (Germans are only warmongers and have no culture, riiiiiiight), and I could easily point out errors on my own, like roman legions building roads (roman road system was my profs "pet study" he said its a myth that legions built roads). But thats not that important (btw, did you read civilopedia entry for iroquois?). The point is, it is a game, and if it is fun (diverse), it is in the game. Melee units building roads? Cool! Another civ using forest as roads? Creative! And if wrong stereotypes are used as reasonings, Ill gladly accept them.
 
It's a game with historical elements. Realism or historical accuracy has never been a priority, gameplay and having fun is. The Iroquois are fun the way they're portrayed. I think you can easily criticize every civ on its accuracy. But why waste your time on that? It's a game not a history book.
 
Mohawks were legendary warriors. Their neighbors were in constant fear of being annihilated. They essentially had free reign for a very long time. I believe swords can become muskets now, so your ultra experienced Mohawks become legendary marksmen upon researching gunpowder, just like how they became expert marksmen as soon as they got guns historically. This is the one of the main reasons Champlain and France were not able to start a real empire, they attacked the Iroquois to impress the... Miqmacs? Someone in conflict with the Iroquois anyway. They also were renowned for their woodworking skills. Iroquois used their battle prowess to keep the land with the highest quality resources including the best lumber which they used to make canoes, weapons, armor, and all sorts of things, so the longhouse bonus makes perfect sense to me. Also... Most American native tribes had scout/runners of immense skill because of the need for rapid communication. These men and women practiced so hard and were so professional that they could run over 100 miles a day through rough territory and deliver a message they had committed to memory, so it's really not racist so much as an homage to those talented runners.

Anyway, I disagree that their portrayal is racist. I love the Iroquois, they're my fav civ to play right now, and I love reading about eastern woodland natives for a lot of reasons
 
There is always an issue in Civ games as to what to call the North American Indian tribes. The Inca, Maya, and Aztecs are all obvious. But what of the American continent, a vast area that contained many tribes and was never really unified? Civ 5 breaks it into 2, which is more treatment than it got in Civ 4, where it was all lumped together as "Native American".

Maybe the UA could be more useful and historically accurate. But beyond that, I'm happy with how North American is represented in the game.
 
I always found it odd that a woman was not the leader given their place in the true leadership of the confederate nations. One shouldn't look to Longfellow for the history. Having lived with the Seneca, Mohawks et al for a few years, the decisions Civ made with the Iroquois is somewhat lazy at best.
 
Good read. But we probably ought to be thankful that the game isn't is hilariously prejudiced as Civ4's implementation of the Native American Empire led by Sitting Bull, who proceeds to offer you a peace pipe to smoke. They get dog soldiers and Totem poles everyone. Their leader is wizended, environmentalism is his favorite civic, and he has a big stereotypical Indian headdress. The Native American Empire everyone. :clap:
 
...why does England get 2 spies? (basically because they were considered weak in vanilla)

Because England had the greatest spy that the world had ever seen.

Spoiler :
e578ce0dc4ae84d9879853c83866aef8.jpg


And that's not even mentioning Mr.Holmes. Clearly, the English deserve two spies. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom