new evidence native americans should be a civ

[mossmonster]

then we'll see just how far those civs manage to 'advance'

This certainly sounds like you expect the civs to not advance, with the reason being the natural disasters you mention. Europe has floods and extreme winter storms too, and US tornadoes are mainly limited to only the 'tornado alley' region of the midwest and earthquakes exclusively to Missouri and the West Coast region.

My point was simply that natural disasters do not need to inhibit cultural/societal growth at all, with the obvious example being Japan. Their islands get earthquakes, floods, tsunamis and typhoons and yet they have proudly produced one of the world's great and lasting civilizations. Did they 'tech whore' their way to advancement as you cynically suggest was the only way the Europeans could have gotten as far as they have? Someone still had to invent/discover it in the first place, no matter how fast and easily an advancement spreads from that point.

The thread is about whether northern native american tribes are worthy to be a civ4 civilization. Even re-reading your post it still seems you mentioned the natural disasters as the reason they didn't advance at the rate other cultures did. If I mis-read it then why exactly did you mention natural disasters and why did you mention Europe in your btw comment if not just to take a jab and cast their advancement in a negative light?

 

[Raggamuffin]

I don't object one bit to the first post in this thread. It's common knowledge for people who actually bother to look up non-biased information. Found everywhere if you're interested. The Native Americans were far more developed that commonly known. But I still maintain my point that they don't deserve to be in since they didn't form empires/nations/commonwealths large enough. Their advanced and admirable culture prohibited that from happen. They weren't power hungry enough.

 

[thehouse]

Lived in Harmony with nature, HAHAHAHAHA, Almost every major Native American civ was destroyed because of extremely poor treatment of the enviroment.

 

[Volstag]

Lived in Harmony with nature, HAHAHAHAHA, Almost every major Native American civ was destroyed because of extremely poor treatment of the enviroment.

Wrong. The vast majority of American Indians were wiped out by disease, displacement, and conquest... largely wrought by the depredations of Europeans.

Cite a source to back up your claim.

 

[tristangreer]

I've seen the words close-minded and one-sided come up, but what is everyone doing here? Someone posited some information, and some people disagree, how does that make them close minded? It's not a fact yet, and it's still a theory. Aren't the people on the other side also just as one-sided? It's about taking up a side and defending it. You defend your side, I defend mine. If you want to use labels like close-minded simply because I don't agree with a certain line of thought, go for it. But I'll defend what I've read, considering I've read and personally spoken with many Native American history experts. If you'd like I can give you their names and numbers and you can call them and defend your views, and see how a historian would look at your points. But the fact is that you can't just look at a book and say, "Well he did his research, so it's gotta be true." What makes all this supposed evidence true? Are you just swallowing what you want to hear?

Someone said that once people thought the Earth was flat, but people have believed many false things, and probably still do. What's to say that this isn't another instance of the same thing happening? Sure, you can look at a few books and say, "Well, it looks right, and there's evidence for it, so it's true". But then again, look at every scientific or social theory that had some amount of evidence behind it, and look how it was wrong. This is more than likely just another in the long line of wrong theories.

Granted, I could very well be doing the same thing. But are your views superior to mine in any way? Just because you see things differently, I'm the one that is close-minded?

If you think historians are supposed to just accept things just because someone writes a book on it, or even if two or three or four or even a hundred write books on it, that is a misconstrued notion of what history is.

 

[Ghafhi]

Sorry, but doesn't this just illustrate your one-sided viewpoint? They both saw each other as monsters and had real evidence to support their negative opinions of each other. It's not fair to just mention one side and ignore that atrocities were plentiful everywhere in those days, not just for the crusades but in general history as well.

If you feel your culture X was unfairly picked on historically you're probably right. Every group throughout time was no doubt mistreated, repeatedly and badly. History is not a pretty picture. The strong survive, refit, rebuild and advance onward and the weak perish (or in the modern world barely hang on and make excuses and blame everyone else). That's called the real life, and it includes winners and losers in every category.

You have a right to your opinion but this is a game forum, so why your civ should or shouldn't be included is reasonable, the politics of blame really isn't.

It is true that both sides make up things about each other but the europeans of the 16-2000 actually believed it because they new so little about the opposite. If the Fulani were to say all British people are 10 feet and have claws a Fulani person could go to the librabry and know that it was a lie. Europeans tried hard to erase african and native history so the european would naturally asssume it was true if the governments were saying this and couldn't find eveidence to contradict it.

 

[Ghafhi]

so ur saying ther was a great native american empire???

i think not...

i agree, ther whear large cities of a few ten thosands, 15 at the most usaly. these citys are still much smaller then those in the rest of the world.
ther may have been tribes, that controled a few hundred miles around ther centeral village, but ther whear never any empires, or civilazatios.
like others said, thers no evidence for any of that. and the books probly by some crack pot like so many alantis ones, and the chinese disscovering america.

Your just a 5 year old what do you know about native civs.

Moderator Action: Ghafhi, you have been warned many times before, and banned also. If I were you, I'd be careful with my posting. Warned for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[trotskylite]

It is true that both sides make up things about each other but the europeans of the 16-2000 actually believed it because they new so little about the opposite. If the Fulani were to say all British people are 10 feet and have claws a Fulani person could go to the librabry and know that it was a lie. Europeans tried hard to erase african and native history so the european would naturally asssume it was true if the governments were saying this and couldn't find eveidence to contradict it.

 

[bitonti]

what are people arguing about last time i checked my copy of Civ3 (Complete) you could play as the Iroquois, Maya, Inca and Aztecs - all native to "Americas" - if they aren't in the stock version they will be in the expansion pack. Chill out.

 

[tmarcl]

Wrong. The vast majority of American Indians were wiped out by disease, displacement, and conquest... largely wrought by the depredations of Europeans.

Cite a source to back up your claim.

While that's true, the Native Americans didn't exactly live "in harmony with nature"-especially if they were building cities. Of course, we do have to ask what you mean by "in harmony with nature". My guess is that you mean they had as little impact on the environment as possible, taking only what they needed to survive, etc.

This however, is not only untrue, but is impossible in any group larger than a nomadic group. Once you start settling down, planting crops, building houses, etc, you start impacting the environment big time-it's impossible not to.

Think about it. We were talking about one city near St. Louis that had 15,000 people. First of all, in order to house them, you either need to dig up either a lot of trees or a lot of stone (or even mud). Then you need to feed them. This means either a lot of hunting-which isn't going to help much for 15,000 people, or agriculture.

With agriculture, you're changing the environment by removing large portions of the native (to that area) plant life and putting in something different. This causes the native wildlife, whose food source is now gone, to move off-again, impacting the environment.

Of course, then you've got waste products-obviously not chemical or hazardous materials, but all that human waste, the bones, the just general garbage has to go somewhere. Not all of it's going to be biodegradable, either.

And there's more to it, I'm sure. Suffice it to say, there is no way that a civilization can grow and live in harmony with nature. It's impossible. As I see it, either the Native Americans lived in harmony with nature-and thus made no impact whatsoever and don't deserve to be in Civ IV, or they were a real civilization.

Marc

 

[mossmonster]

Wrong. The vast majority of American Indians were wiped out by disease, displacement, and conquest... largely wrought by the depredations of Europeans.

Cite a source to back up your claim.

For example the Anasazi of the US desert southwest went extinct/moved prior to the Spanish arrival in the region. The usual reasons given for this are a combination of drought and over-farming needed to support a large population in a rather unproductive landscape. Google Anasazi for vast amounts of info if you like.

NO culture can, or ever has totally lived in harmony with nature as the very act of survival requires taking from the ecosystem. We are at the top of the food chain. Small groups may take from an ecosystem without ill effects in a sustainable level, but the larger the group (we are talking civs here), then the larger the impact on the surrounding landscape must be. You can't plant crops without first displacing whatever natural plants and animals were already there. Cities generate waste products and pollutants. The bigger the group of people, the more damage to the local environment. Only in modern times have any efforts been made to reduce the inherent damage humans do to their habitats. The civ game system reflects this model as well.

 

[elderotter]

I think some of the confusion is the title just referring to the title of this thread alone - no, there should not be a civ called "native americans", just as there should not be a civ called "native europeans". There are, as was stated 2 native american civs represented - one from North America and one from South America.
From where this topic went I have the Feeling that "NATIVE AMERICAN" is defined by many as those populations of native peoples who existed within the borders of the United states of America prior to the existance of the USA.
This is a very limited Scope as America = 2 Continents North and South. Go to a South America country and refer to Americans as only those people living in the US - I think you find their response very edifying.

 

[mossmonster]

I think some of the confusion is the title just referring to the title of this thread alone - no, there should not be a civ called "native americans", just as there should not be a civ called "native europeans". There are, as was stated 2 native american civs represented - one from North America and one from South America.
From where this topic went I have the Feeling that "NATIVE AMERICAN" is defined by many as those populations of native peoples who existed within the borders of the United states of America prior to the existance of the USA.
This is a very limited Scope as America = 2 Continents North and South. Go to a South America country and refer to Americans as only those people living in the US - I think you find their response very edifying.

Agreed, 'America' is far more than just the US alone, so I think the thread is poorly titled. As Central and South America are still represented, and only the northern North American tribe was removed the discussion is really if a US/Canada region tribe should be included.

 

[Tarascan_King]

I think some of the confusion is the title just referring to the title of this thread alone - no, there should not be a civ called "native americans", just as there should not be a civ called "native europeans". There are, as was stated 2 native american civs represented - one from North America and one from South America.
From where this topic went I have the Feeling that "NATIVE AMERICAN" is defined by many as those populations of native peoples who existed within the borders of the United states of America prior to the existance of the USA.
This is a very limited Scope as America = 2 Continents North and South. Go to a South America country and refer to Americans as only those people living in the US - I think you find their response very edifying.

Also Agreed!

The problem is that many people think "Americans" is just those people born in the United States of America, but that is wrong everybody born on this continent from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego is 100% American.
So you are very right elderotter.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Wrong. The vast majority of American Indians were wiped out by disease, displacement, and conquest... largely wrought by the depredations of Europeans.

Cite a source to back up your claim.

Actually the arrival of humans in the Americas mysteriously coincides with some mass graves of large animals, as well as their going extinct (both considered due to the hunting practice of running herds of animals off cliffs) perhaps by just pre-Columbian times their culture had modified but that was because they had already wrecked the environment pushing several 'endangered' large animals to extinction, and now Needed every part of their prey.

 

[vStauffenberg]

@elderotter, @mossmonster, @Tarascan_King and others: you are right, I titled the thread rather poorly, in fact very poorly, i'm sorry...

here i go again, the new title:

"new (not new to all, though) theory (and some new evidence), that native americans, especially on the north american continent, actually were more advanced (and more numerous) before the arrival of europeans than it has been traditionally believed, and that therefore the inclusion of more native american tribes / civs / nations (pick one), especially concerning north america, as "civilizations" in the meaning of the term "civilization" as it relates to the computer game "civilization (I-IV)" into the game civilization V or its successors (may there be many) or also civilization IV's official and unofficial extensions should be revalued and reconsidered based on this new information"

(a bit long, but oh well...)

p.s. not meant to be sarcastic, i really think it was poorly titled! hope it's more accurate now.

 

[jkp1187]

This is nice, but we don't really need is a peppercorn of evidence -- the game should be as inclusive as possible. The Iroquois, Cherokee, Mayans, etc., should be in the game, as should the Ethiopians, Scandinavians, Israelites, Assyrians, Hittites, Babylonians, Austrians, Poles, Afrikaaners, Xhosa, Zulu, etc. Why not even the Hmong? Hopefully there'll be LOTS more civs in expansion packs. The point of Civ is to re-write history -- as long as a civilization has been recorded in history and at some point settled down in villages, they qualify.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I think the best Idea is two categories of civs

1. "Classic" they have specifically designed leaderheads, Unique Units, and Traits, a long city list and lists of different types of great person (20-40 civs)

2. "Extended" they all have a Name and a Cultural group. They might have a short city list, and the name of a Leader, possibly even the name of a vew great people. In each game, the leader graphics are randomly made through some customizable mix+match program, the leader traits are randomly selected, and their UU is selected at random from one of the Classic Civs and renamed (so Croatian Redcoat, Cherokee Praetorian, Canaanite Navy SEAL, Confederate Panzers, Canadian Keshiks, etc.). If they lack city/Great Person/Leader names they grab unused names as needed from lists of other classic civs in their culture group. (200+ Civs because they would probably not take more than a few minutes each to add)

Then in a game you could select your opponents as Random Classic, Random, Random European, etc.

 

[elderotter]

@elderotter, @mossmonster, @Tarascan_King and others: you are right, I titled the thread rather poorly, in fact very poorly, i'm sorry...

here i go again, the new title:

"new (not new to all, though) theory (and some new evidence), that native americans, especially on the north american continent, actually were more advanced (and more numerous) before the arrival of europeans than it has been traditionally believed, and that therefore the inclusion of more native american tribes / civs / nations (pick one), especially concerning north america, as "civilizations" in the meaning of the term "civilization" as it relates to the computer game "civilization (I-IV)" into the game civilization V or its successors (may there be many) or also civilization IV's official and unofficial extensions should be revalued and reconsidered based on this new information"

(a bit long, but oh well...)

p.s. not meant to be sarcastic, i really think it was poorly titled! hope it's more accurate now.

Cool, thanks for proving your Maturity by admitting it, kinda expected to be flamed for saying it. Kudos once again.

 

[vStauffenberg]

Cool, thanks for proving your Maturity by admitting it, kinda expected to be flamed for saying it. Kudos once again.

you're welcome!