new evidence native americans should be a civ

[mossmonster]

They are already in. Or what do you think Mayans and Aztecs are, native africans?

It's always nice when people take just a moment to read the thread before contributing with their comment. This is discussed in detail a few posts before yours.

 

[mossmonster]

I have two problems to believe these 2 periods that I quoted.
First of all, I would like to know what are the evidences, or even the claims or suppositions of the author, to go as far as saying that Native Americans, and in particular northern tribes "engineered the landscape across the continents". With what tools ? With what scientific, physical knowledges ? Even the other cultures around the world would not be able to "engeneer" the landscape, actually even today we are only able to destroy the landscape rather than engeneer it, to the point that Earth is likely going to kill us all starting in a few decades. Yet, according to the author of the book, the Amazon rainforest is the product of human intervention ???

The second period is ludicrous beyond any limit. There have been epidemics in the whole world, but I've never heard of an epidemic that destroyed evidences of cities, that spread among tribes with little to no contact faster than light-speed, that even changed a culture from sedentary to nomadic ??? There has been the very same epidemics in central and south America too, and "all" they did was decimating the population, they didn't delete a culture and the evidences of it.

Excellent post. Using Europe as a reference seems to be a touchy subject, so please consider other faded civs like the Khmer. When they leave there is still vast mountains of evidence of their civilization having once existed in an advanced state. Some of the ruins of the desert Southwest US are impressive, but that is still only in a limited geographical area. If your argument is for inclusion of the Iroquois for example, then where is their equivalent evidence of advancement?

 

[mossmonster]

Just as far as the rest of us. They are still around, you know.

Now, if you wish to compare how far they had got, and how far the Europeans had got, when the two worlds met, then the northern amerinds were more advanced in some areas (like agriculture), and the Europeans in others (like metalworking). And keep in mind who chose what to put in that tech tree.

Let's assume the tech tree is somehow biased (this is a game and I agree it's not the best historical test of advancement). Based on the thread topic, do you feel that mentioned Amerindian advancements in agriculture, despite their still being in the stone age in 1500 a.d., are sufficient to qualify them to be one of the 18 greatest civs and therefore included in the original civ4?

 

[HalfBadger]

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.

Funny a few ppl have posted comments like this. Native/First Nation/Aboriginal Americans are already in the game. Yet those who debate that 'Native Americans' should be in the game, haven't counter argued this point, at least not that I saw upto the 4th page.

Also there hasn't been a clear indication are we talking about both American continents, or just North American Aboriginals/Natives nor what one would call these Native American Civs.

I believe a few have mentioned, that also hasn't been really counter debated. Even if there were great empires/civilizations in North America, other than giving us Syphillis, what other effects did they have on 'World' History or the other continents and civilizations.

If there was sudden proof that for example Atlantis existed, but crumbled/was destroyed before modern civilizations, i.e. having no effect on the rest of the world, would we include them?

About the Dark Ages scenerio, with plague and barbs attacking, aren't those similar to the fall of rome and Middle Ages scenerioes in Conquests, the 2nd expansion of Civ3?

They'll obviously expand the civs we can use and different aspects of the game, but really they recreated everything with a 3d engine, introduced religion, changed combat etc, give them a break, these things hsould into suggestions for expansions threads, not they should have added this to current game.

 

[Jonathan]

Now you sound like Mrs. Muffin. She's from Europe. She says she's a native European, so you can clearly see that she is mad.

Nothing mad about that. "Native" just means that you were born in the place referred to. Anyone born in Europe is a native European. Anyone born in America is a native American (even if his parents came from Vietnam).

There ought to be a convenient way to describe people whose ancestors have been living in a place for many centuries, but "native" isn't the way to do it. "Aboriginal" would be more accurate.

 

[mossmonster]

Also there hasn't been a clear indication are we talking about both American continents, or just North American Aboriginals/Natives nor what one would call these Native American Civs.

Posts #72-4, and #76. Talkng about N. of the Rio Grande, US/Canada region native americans. Specifically I think to paraphrase, 'why were the Iroquois removed in the new civ4?'

 

[HalfBadger]

Nothing mad about that. "Native" just means that you were born in the place referred to. Anyone born in Europe is a native European. Anyone born in America is a native American (even if his parents came from Vietnam).

There ought to be a convenient way to describe people whose ancestors have been living in a place for many centuries, but "native" isn't the way to do it. "Aboriginal" would be more accurate.

You're saying he should have said something like, Native North American, or native North Western American etc?

Has anyone 'researched' North American Aboriginal history, to see their timeline of history, i.e. is there anything about cities they had etc to back up the claims of the book?

 

[Hannabir]

Let's assume the tech tree is somehow biased (this is a game and I agree it's not the best historical test of advancement). Based on the thread topic, do you feel that mentioned Amerindian advancements in agriculture, despite their still being in the stone age in 1500 a.d., are sufficient to qualify them to be one of the 18 greatest civs and therefore included in the original civ4?

Does their knowledge of metalworking put the Europeans in the top 18, despite being still in the monoculture age in 1500 AD?

 

[mossmonster]

Does their knowledge of metalworking put the Europeans in the top 18, despite being still in the monoculture age in 1500 AD?

Yes, actually IMHO it does. In addition to 'Metalworking', both the primitive Bronze and more advanced Iron, please include Ocean Navigation and Global exploration, Optics, accurate clocks, Engineering of large and advanced structures like Cathedrals, and most importantly in my view, the Printing Press and the University system so new knowledge and advancements could quickly be spread throughout the land. By 1500 a.d. Europe was coming out of the dark ages, developing a 'middle class' of traders and merchants and beginning to advance at a faster rate again.

 

[Hannabir]

Except for cathedrals, which are included in the materials edge, all of that happened or grew after and because of contact.
The mercantile revolution, specifically, was possible because the Dutch adopted Iroquois agricultural techniques.

 

[Urederra]

It's always nice when people take just a moment to read the thread before contributing with their comment. This is discussed in detail a few posts before yours.

It would be even nicer if you could change the title or the first posts so we don't have to go through all the thread. The forums are veeeery slow these days, you know.


Besides, there are Zillions of threads like this one and NOBODY changes their bad habits about disregarding the Mayans, Aztecs or Incas.

 

[Urederra]

Now you sound like Mrs. Muffin. She's from Europe. She says she's a native European, so you can clearly see that she is mad. Heh heh. We've had words about this, but she is stubborn in that Scandanavian way that defies all reason. But she married me, so I suppose she is pretty smart after all.

Mexicans are nice. I am sure there are some natives that consider themselves Mexican, just as there are some natives that consider themselves American. Not all Americans (or Mexicans for that matter) are native, if you see what I mean. I'll just assume you are flattering me, by thinking the Mexicans are natives. Ever been to Mexico? Cool place. Got to practice my spanish there too. (I also know english, btw, but never been there, only flew over it) Never got to call anyone a "gringo", but still had good times. Got tense crossing the border, but it seems I didn't look enough like a mexican to interest the border gaurd. Rats. Not at all like the movies.

I say Native, because it is easier than saying my peoples name (you don't know my language, not your fault). It's better than calling myself an ndn though.

I would have liked more cultures though, in Civ 4. I like my own, and wish I had the Iroquois to play again (closest to my nation), but oh well. Some is better than none. Inca are groovy. Aztec.... with nukes, oh my! Heh heh. Let them mayhem begin!

Yeah, but most of the mexican actually living in Mexico and the USA are natives as well, in the sense that they belong to a native american race that was there before the arrival of the Europeans. So they are as native americans as you are, regardless of what you think, which it seems that they are not as native american as you are.

Sorry if I missunderstood.

 

[mossmonster]

Except for cathedrals, which are included in the materials edge, all of that happened or grew after and because of contact.
The mercantile revolution, specifically, was possible because the Dutch adopted Iroquois agricultural techniques.

The European version of the printing press was invented in 1450 and many Universities predate this as well. Are you really saying that the technology needed for Europeans to come to N. America was somehow pre-provided by the Native Americans themselves beforehand? Sorry, but I wasn't aware Rome owed it's greatness to the Native Americans. Is that really the best argument you can provide for inclusion of a Northern native american tribe in civ4? Let me help:

1. Origins in Ancient times.
2. Unique languages and cultures.
3. Strong group identities.
4. Survival to Modern Times.
5. Made contributions to civilization at large, i.e. improvements in agriculture, democracy, etc.

 

[Urederra]

Also there hasn't been a clear indication are we talking about both American continents, or just North American Aboriginals/Natives nor what one would call these Native American Civs.

Last time I checked there was only one American continent. That is why it is called america, and it does not have two different names for to different continents, Because it is only one continent.

Somehow it is what everybody thinks, although in some countries, (two that I think of) they teach in the schools that there are two continents, yet there is only one name for the whole continent, and they call native americans to the natives that lives in the north part of the continent. Very sad way of disregard cultures, way more annoying than including them in a game or not.

 

[elderotter]

where do they teach that North America and South America are one continent = America?

 

[Hannabir]

The European version of the printing press was invented in 1450 and many Universities predate this as well.

But that's not what you said above. You claimed widespread use.

The Iroquois were ahead in a lot of areas. Agriculture was just a single example although one with a huge impact. Government is another.

 

[Hannabir]

where do they teach that North America and South America are one continent = America?

Everywhere but in (some parts of) the USA, so it seems. This has already been discussed in a dozen other threads the last few days.

 

[mossmonster]

We are very much on topic.

But that's not what you said above. You claimed widespread use.

Where exactly did I say the printing press was in widespread use? Universities were still fairly uncommon as well but they had existed long before then and were the foundations for important future growth.

The Iroquois were ahead in a lot of areas. Agriculture was just a single example although one with a huge impact. Government is another.

I'm asking you for specifics to back your claims. What areas? Where are the Iroquois cities or ruins thereof? It's easy to throw claims, the topic is should they be a civ in the game? If you belive so, which is of course your right, provide evidence as to why. There is no need to mention Europe or any other civ really at all. Why does your civ deserve to be included?



P.S. - This whole thing is just for fun until we can get the game to actually play. It's not meant as an affont to anyone. Any civ can easily be added to the new game, which is great!

 

[elderotter]

Everywhere but in (some parts of) the USA, so it seems. This has already been discussed in a dozen other threads the last few days.

just because they touch and form a continous landmass doesnt make them one continent or europe/asia/africa are just one continent. which means there are 4 continents not 7. wow they'll teach any thing to any body lately.

 

[drjones]

where do they teach that North America and South America are one continent = America?

Perhaps when they dug the Panama Canal they broke it in two . But yeah having a midwestern US education they call them seperate continents, just a bit of us-centric propaganda that snuck in.

That said, continents are abstract concepts that mean nothing, tectonic sheets can be mesured, continents cannot.

As for the rest of the discussion, since this is a GAME the Iriquois can develop ironworking before the romans, WHY THE HECK NOT??

-drjones