new evidence native americans should be a civ

[vStauffenberg]

a new book ("1491 - New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" by Charles C. Mann) sums up new evidence that native americans were far more developed than history books tell us:

"The history books most Americans were (and still are) raised on describe the continents before Columbus as a vast, underused territory, sparsely populated by primitives whose cultures would inevitably bow before the advanced technologies of the Europeans. For decades, though ... different stories have been emerging. Among the revelations: the first Americans may not have come over the Bering land bridge around 12,000 B.C. but by boat along the Pacific coast 10 or even 20 thousand years earlier; the Americas were a far more urban, more populated, and more technologically advanced region than generally assumed; and the Indians, rather than living in static harmony with nature, radically engineered the landscape across the continents, to the point that even "timeless" natural features like the Amazon rainforest can be seen as products of human intervention."

about early American-European contact:

"...the earliest encounters felt more like a meeting of equals than one of natural domination. And those who came later and found an emptied landscape that seemed ripe for the taking, Mann argues convincingly, encountered not the natural and unchanging state of the native American, but the evidence of a sudden calamity: the ravages of what was likely the greatest epidemic in human history, the smallpox and other diseases introduced inadvertently by Europeans to a population without immunity, which swept through the Americas faster than the explorers who brought it, and left behind for their discovery a land that held only a shadow of the thriving cultures that it had sustained for centuries before."

take a look at the book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-9642805-1929527?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

now, someone say again that there should be no native american civ

off reading til civ4...

 

[Jonathan]

No strong objection from me. Native Americans go back far enough. Did they actually form cities?

 

[Zhahz]

I wouldn't argue against it.

What I would argue, as a programmer, gamer, and someone who wants the game to come out in my lifetime and be playable, is that there are only so many civs that can be included in the game at release within reason, only so many civs that you'd want to have to pick from, that 18 is actually a very generous amount for release, that you can mod any pet civ you want to be in, and that in picking the 18 they most certainly have left off someones pet civ or included a civ that someone else deems unworthy.

And it's going to be ok!

 

[vStauffenberg]

No strong objection from me. Native Americans go back far enough. Did they actually form cities?

yes, according to the book, not only the mayas and the incas did, but also north american natives.

"around 1000 AD: Abrupt rise of Cahokia, near modern St. Louis, the largest city north of the Rio Grande. Population estimates vary from at least 15,000 to 100,000.

Reconstruction of Cahokia, c. 1250 A.D.

American natives had many cities and a population of about 100 million (!). It was only after 90% of the population died of small pox and other viruses (spreading over the whole continent from the first euro-american trade contacts way before the mayflower settlement) that the buffalos were able to spawn and take over the prairie (no joke, this is said in the book). the superior virological immunity of the europeans was simply due to their filthiness in their habit of living with farm animals and not washing. the indians reportedly were disgusted by the first europeans. epidemics were the sole reason why the first settlers found america practically empty and only inhabited by few surviving, severely weakened re-nomaded natives.

an epidemic which was maybe the first (unintended) use of biological weapons of mass destruction in history, killing over 90 million native americans within years, according to the book, is what made european settlement of the americas possible (and not technological superiority)

 

[mossmonster]

now, someone say again that there should be no native american civ

off reading til civ4...

Wouldn't it be nice if civ had a few hundred cultures you could choose from? That way nobody could complain "how come my civ X isn't included". But reality only has so many slots for the initial game, so the most deserving can be chosen, and someone will be unhappy.

Take a look at the civ3 tech tree and ask how far any of the northern tribes made it. Bronze working - no, Alphabet - no, the wheel - no, horses aren't fair of course because they came with the Spanish, map making?, writing? math?, code of law?, etc., etc. Their religion and languages are all but extinct. Sorry, but for whatever the reasons may be they didn't succeed as a civ culture.

My opinion: "there should be no native american civ" :shakehead

 

[Jecrell]

The Native Americans were so split up between each other and never formed one society or civilization. I would not object to a major society of the Native Americans becoming a civilization, but I would discourage the idea of making the "Native American civilization." That is far too broad a statement.

 

[vStauffenberg]

Wouldn't it be nice if civ had a few hundred cultures you could choose from? That way nobody could complain "how come my civ X isn't included". But reality only has so many slots for the initial game, so the most deserving can be chosen, and someone will be unhappy.

Take a look at the civ3 tech tree and ask how far any of the northern tribes made it. Bronze working - no, Alphabet - no, the wheel - no, horses aren't fair of course because they came with the Spanish, map making?, writing? math?, code of law?, etc., etc. Their religion and languages are all but extinct. Sorry, but for whatever the reasons may be they didn't succeed as a civ culture.

My opinion: "there should be no native american civ" :shakehead

you are not seriously judging a real civilization by some computer game's "tech tree"!

besides, i think diversity of cultures to choose from would be a value in itself for any civ-game, and european cultures are all (naturally) very much alike.

it is not a european measure of progress ("tech tree") that should be applied to judge whether a civ is worthy but instead diversity and differences

in this aspect, american civilizations are clearly worthy to be in the game, as they were clearly different

if it wasn't for the small pox, no one can say if america could at all have been settled succesfully by europeans. maybe, maybe not. it would have made a large difference to fight against 100 million "redskins" instead of just a few million, that's for sure.
take a look at india: conquered, but no epidemics (immunity due to long lasting trade contacts?), not much successful european settlement (not an empty land) and later regained independence

The Native Americans were so split up between each other and never formed one society or civilization. I would not object to a major society of the Native Americans becoming a civilization, but I would discourage the idea of making the "Native American civilization." That is far too broad a statement.

this is classic historybook knowledge. the problem is: we don't know for sure if this is really true. read the book I mentioned, it's a great read...
besides: german tribes were split up for centuries as well, they didn't form a common society until a few centuries ago, so in this respect you can't really speak of a "german civilization" either

 

[mossmonster]

Truce was called and I think it's a good idea. You have a right to your own opinions and I respect that. One of my best friends throughout school was a local native american from the Chinook tribe here, and even he admits his ancestors never made it out of the stone age. Don't belive everything you see in a book as sometimes it may be correct, and sometimes it just sells books.

 

[ogmoir]

That's not that new information. Historians have long known that the North American indians were much more developed than is widely assumed. The same applies for Sub-Saharan Africa. It seems that it's easier for the inhabitants of former colonial powers to think that the people they oppressed were so primitive that it was all right to oppress if some development came out of it.

 

[Jonathan]

Truce was called and I think it's a good idea.

I don't think a "truce" is necessary, because there's no reason for war on this subject. Anyone who wants a particular civ in the game can mod the game and add it (or use someone else's mod, or an expansion pack from Firaxis), without affecting anyone else. Anyone who wants a particular civ out of the game can very easily exclude it from his own games, without affecting anyone else.

There shouldn't be any conflict or heated argument, because there's no reason for any.

Expressing opinions about which civs should or shouldn't be in the game is fair enough, as long as we all realize that these are subjective personal opinions only and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

 

[Orion66]

Natve americans could be in Civ4 but NOT "Americans"..... Americans are a marketing creation.

 

[vStauffenberg]

Truce was called and I think it's a good idea. You have a right to your own opinions and I respect that. One of my best friends throughout school was a local native american from the Chinook tribe here, and even he admits his ancestors never made it out of the stone age. Don't belive everything you see in a book as sometimes it may be correct, and sometimes it just sells books.

@mossmonster: you're right, one shouldn't believe everything that is printed in books. this includes classic schoolbooks btw. in the absence of factual evidence, one's best bet is to judge views on whether they are plausible. and the views in the book I mentioned are highly plausible: epidemics simply are the most reasonable explanation for the otherwise unexplicable emptiness of the two highly fruitful american continents in the late 16th century.

@jonathan: it's okay for me if there's no native (north) american civ in the game. imo there should be, but oh well... i merely found this interesting new point about the native americans that i opened it for discussion

 

[Antiochus]

We're talking civilisations here. If you start to lower the benchmark this far...why not include the Huns as a civ? Or the Scythians? Illyrians? Dacians? They also lived in cities...yet they were classified as barbarians in Civ III. You have to draw the line somewhere, or else you could basically say that any coherent ethnic group of people that ever lived were a civ.

 

[vStauffenberg]

We're talking civilisations here. If you start to lower the benchmark this far...why not include the Huns as a civ? Or the Scythians? Illyrians? Dacians? They also lived in cities...yet they were classified as barbarians in Civ III. You have to draw the line somewhere, or else you could basically say that any coherent ethnic group of people that ever lived were a civ.

epidemics simply are the most reasonable explanation for the otherwise unexplicable emptiness of the two highly fruitful american continents in the late 16th century.

 

[Benjie]

I would like Native America as a Civ too. More so than the one England founded on their land, but I don't see why we can't have both.

 

[Antiochus]

Not disputing that...but where is the archaeological evidence of these "civilisations"? The Aztecs, Mayans etc left behind distinctive and indisputable records of their civilisations. Where are the ruins of these great Native American cities?

Just because an area has a reasonably high population doesn't mean the inhabitants suddenly become a civilisation, if they are still all primitive nomads.

 

[Alphidius]

Ok relax everyone.... relax...

Antiochus: It is true that we have to draw the line somewhere for what constitutes a Civilization but where the line is drawn is blurry...
I mean the Huns and such will not be included that's for sure but to me the Mongols don't really constitute as a Civilization either (no offense to those Mongol fans)

vStauffenberg: Interesting read but it still doesn't change the fact that there are no Native North American civs in the game. And even if they did survive the viruses, most of their technology were no match against the Conquestators. My 2 cents

So I say to each his own. Mod it to what you like
Peace....

 

[Antiochus]

Yeah, i actually don't think the Mongols should be a civ either, they fit the definition of barbarian far better. The only reason they're in really is because of their fame and the large amount of territory they conquered.

 

[Jonathan]

i merely found this interesting new point about the native americans that i opened it for discussion

I agree that it's interesting and I'm glad you mentioned it. I didn't know that the Native Americans had genuine cities.

I did know that they were largely wiped out by European disease. I think that's been known for some time, and it was an element of Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs and Steel" (1997), which I read soon after it came out. Looking at the book again now, he reckons that native American civilizations were held back throughout history by their natural environment (complex reasons: read the book for details).

"The Americas had two empires, those of the Aztecs and Incas, which resembled their Eurasian counterparts in size, population, polyglot makeup, official religions, and origins in the conquest of smaller states ... The Americas also held many chiefdoms (some of them virtually small states) in tropical South America, Mesoamerica beyond Aztec rule, and the U.S. Southwest. The rest of the Americas was organized only at the tribal or band level."

He notes that the Americas never developed writing.

I'm neutral on this subject. The Native Americans are ancient enough that they wouldn't feel wrong in the game, and maybe they were civilized in principle before they were overrun; but they seem to have got civilized late and had some catching up to do.

 

[Rowain deWolf]

yes, according to the book, not only the mayas and the incas did, but also north american natives.

"around 1000 AD: Abrupt rise of Cahokia, near modern St. Louis, the largest city north of the Rio Grande. Population estimates vary from at least 15,000 to 100,000.

American natives had many cities and a population of about 100 million (!). It was only after 90% of the population died of small pox and other viruses (spreading over the whole continent from the first euro-american trade contacts way before the mayflower settlement) that the buffalos were able to spawn and take over the prairie (no joke, this is said in the book). the superior virological immunity of the europeans was simply due to their filthiness in their habit of living with farm animals and not washing. the indians reportedly were disgusted by the first europeans. epidemics were the sole reason why the first settlers found america practically empty and only inhabited by few surviving, severely weakened re-nomaded natives.

an epidemic which was maybe the first (unintended) use of biological weapons of mass destruction in history, killing over 90 million native americans within years, according to the book, is what made european settlement of the americas possible (and not technological superiority)

The Problem is that there is no archaeological evidence for a north-american high-culture. Compare that with the evidences for Mayas, Incas etc.

PS. I once read in a book that extraterrestians have been on earth and are the source of our knowledge so perhaps we should add Marsian- and Venusian-Civs too.