The Sioux did literally nothing of significance except lose wars--first to the Iroquois (who drove them onto the Plains) and then the US (who drove them out of the Black Hills). I'm very sorry for their loss, but that doesn't scream "worthy civilization" to me.
That is both wrong and insulting. The Sioux won a war against the United States Army,
Red Cloud's War. They also won the
Battle of the Little Bighorn, which is definitely iconic, having been in countless media portrayals, including a telling allusion in the film
The Last Samurai (IMDB Quotes page; use the search function to find "Custer"). They also frequently fought and defeated neighboring tribes. I hardly see that as "literally nothing of significance except los[ing] wars." They scream worthy civilization due to their iconic status, both because of their well-known long military struggle against the US government, and because of their advanced military tactics, having adopted both the horse and the gun (
used to great effect by the Sioux at Little Bighorn). They were ferocious raiders and defensive fighters both, which is why the US government had to use their federal military to defeat them.
Yeah, I hate to break your "tree-hugging environmentalist Indian" stereotype, but the Native Americans of the Southeast hunted the white-tailed deer to extinction; the Native Americans of the Northeast did the same to the beaver; and the Sioux very nearly did the same to the bison. You know how they hunted bison? They drove entire herds over cliffs. So much for "taking only what you need and using every part."
The Native Americans were people just like any other. They may have had a closer relationship to nature, but contrary to popular image they weren't a bunch of tree-hugging hippies who cared for nothing but preserving the sanctity of Mother Earth.
I never said the Sioux were "tree-hugging environmentalist Indians". I find it odd that in criticizing a propped-up stereotype you have yourself engaged in stereotyping--I said the Sioux engaged in "conservation". I did not say they fit into the ridiculous ("tree-hugging") stereotype you drew from nowhere. The
bison were exterminated as a policy of the US government to force the Sioux to negotiate (reduction of the food supply means they are forced to trade, etc.) Notably, destroying bison herds was a US
military policy:
Many military men recognized the bison slaughter as a way of reducing the autonomy of Indigenous Peoples. For instance, Lieutenant Colonel Dodge, a high-ranking military officer, once said in a conversation with Frank H. Mayer: "Mayer, there's no two ways about it, either the buffalo or the Indian must go. Only when the Indian becomes absolutely dependent on us for his every need, will we be able to handle him. He's too independent with the buffalo. But if we kill the buffalo we conquer the Indian. It seems a more humane thing to kill the buffalo than the Indian, so the buffalo must go."
Even Richard Henry Pratt, founder of the Carlisle Indian School and a Tenth Cavalry lieutenant in the Red River War, discussed this strategy after his retirement: "the generation of the buffalo was ordered as a military measure because it was plain that the Indians could not be controlled on their reservations as long as their greatest resource, the buffalo, were so plentiful."
The destruction of bison signaled the end of the Indian Wars, and consequently their movement towards reservations.
The Sioux were indeed close to nature--they relied on nature to survive! Of course they were conservationists (certainly compared to the US government, as history demonstrates). Recent
struggles against the US government over the Dakota pipeline demonstrate that environmentalist and spiritual concerns continue to motivate the modern-day Sioux.
Also, in what way were the Sioux known for their artwork? If we're talking jingle dresses, that's an art only developed post-contact, and if we're talking quillwork they learned it from the Cree and other Algonquian tribes.
As for the art, the Sioux are known for buffalo hide painting, leatherwork (horse saddles, etc), carving, drum-making, pottery, quillwork and beadwork. I don't know whether they were inspired by or drew such traditions from others, but every civ has done that. Would you criticize Romans as "not being known for their art" because they drew heavy inspiration from the Greeks?
(As an aside, the Sioux also had great music. Their
chanting is
great.)
The Tlingit fought a number of engagements with the Russians, not to mention a longstanding and fierce rivalry with the Inuit and Aleuts, who they regarded as their ancient enemies.
The Tlingit fight with 19th century Russia is interesting. Unfortunately they lack any leaders with distinctive histories to go with that. Which I note you have pointedly not addressed since your last post about "fudging" the leader choices for the Haida/Tlingit.
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW NA 12 (11 + 1) -- Comparing a sophisticated civilization that had a caste system, an elaborate ritual of wealth redistribution, sophisticated art and architecture, and permanent settlements with cultures that lived in wanderings bands of fifteen people led by a big man. Wow.
The Haida/Tlingit cultural customs are hardly things that could make it into the game. You know who else had a caste system? India. How often is that portrayed in the game? 0 times. Sioux did not live in bands of "fifteen people led by a big man". The Sioux commanded thousands of warriors, and their leaders were hardly just "big men". They were iconic leaders known the world over (especially Sitting Bull, but also others like Red Cloud and Crazy Horse).
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW NA (10+1)=11 Supporting this till the very end. They add diversity to the Amerindian Civs. The Sioux didn't live in villages, yet are somehow more better a choice? Fixating on leaders and Agendas is a bit much (I actually dislike the Agenda approach Firaxis has taken, it makes certain Civ leaders more annoying, like Gorgo, Pedro II, Alexander and Qin Shi Huang). Pocatello wasn't iconic yet he still got into the game. I think it's worthwhile for Firaxis to contact PNW peoples for help with creating the Civ.
The Sioux are a better choice because they commanded vast swathes of land and thousands of warriors in constant warfare and negotiation with the US government. Their struggle for freedom is admirable and their leaders, Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Gall and Red Cloud alone are far more iconic than any Haida/Tlingit leader can be (as evidence by the sources Guandao was able to muster regarding the Haida/Tlingit/PNW leaders). Pocatello is not in Civ VI, and is iconic in my view for continuing to fight what he saw as the US' abuse of treaty obligations, and he also has a city named after him for his heroic fights and his equally heroic flights from the US (in the dead of winter, to avoid massacre).
For my part I will continue to downvote the Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW category to the end, for three main reasons:
1) Lack of distinct leaders with interesting stories.
Koyah, for example, was a small scale village leader who led a dozen canoes in an attack. Huzzah. At that rate we can make Ned Kelly a leader of Australia, as he too led a small group to steal things.
2) Not a priority over other unrepresented regions like Oceania (who only this game saw Australia added). The Maori were very distinctive and iconic, yet somehow Native Americans close to Canada warrant inclusion over them? That makes no sense.
3) The supporters of Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW have decided that one of their tactics will be to denigrate the Sioux by engaging in offensive generalizations, accusing them of everything from destroying the bison to simply being boring. That Hollywood has decided to stereotype them does not mean they somehow do not deserve to be in Civ.
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW NA 13 (12 + 1) As far as leaders are concerned, I think this aspect of the debate has more or less played out: There have been at least 4 specific leader ideas put forward, plus at least one agenda, and the design your own civ thread has at least 3 abilities that could be used as either civ or leader abilities. You can agree or disagree about whether these options are good ones (I don't think anyone's going to be persuaded at this point), but there definitely are options. As for impact, they were a dominant power in their region and traded beyond it. That's more or less the same impact as every other option on this list. As for what makes them stand out, they are this thread's best option, bar none, for adding geographical variety, cultural variety and (in my view) gameplay variety to the game and the franchise.
Hebrews 15 (18 - 3) Some of the claims in support of this option are more than a bit over the top. Israel has definitely not won a religious victory. Even if you consider Judaism, Christianity and Islam to be the same religion (and there are members of all three religions who would disagree quite strongly with this characterization), its adherents make up barely over half the world's population. It also makes no more sense to count the accomplishments of all Jewish individuals as accomplishments of a single civ, any more than it would make sense to count the accomplishments of all Christian individuals as accomplishments of a single civ. Israel absolutely had a massive impact on world history, but that impact took a form that would best be replicated not by a conventional civ but by a religion-founding city state.
As far as leaders are concerned, the leader ideas do not specify an agenda or ability, and the history behind the leaders shows a scant record at best. Koyah accomplished nothing of note, unless you count stealing boats as an action worthy of a world leader. They are not the best for geographical variety as the Maori have never been in the game, cultural variety--again, Native American groups with totem poles have been represented before in Civ, and as far as gameplay goes, the Haida being compared by historians to the Vikings does not promise engaging or new gameplay.
Israel definitely won a religious victory. Christianity is found in almost every corner of the globe; that's as close as anyone got to a religious victory in real life. At least you agree with me that Israel had a "massive impact" on world history; that's more than can be said about the Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW NA that you upvoted for inclusion as a major civ.
Elimination Game Votes:
Armenians 9
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 21
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Georgians 10
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW NA 11 - 3 = 8 (Downvoted in part because its supporters continue to avoid the lack of a distinctive leader problem, and also because several of its supporters have engaged in insults towards the Sioux to prop up these "close-to-Canada-so-hey" groups in this elimination game.)
Hebrews 17
Maori/Other Polynesians 17 + 1 = 18 (If we want to talk underrepresented, we should note Oceania. The Maori were fierce warriors and culturally sophisticated, and would have some really interesting leaders like Hongi Hika and Te Rauparaha, who commanded thousands of warriors. Also, the Maori haka would be great to hear in music. Civ VI's music as a whole lacks vocals.)
Swahili/Kilwa 14
Vietnamese 10
