Poll: is the "leaked" list of leaders real?

[bite]

While there is a lot of discussion about this, family's can give their blessing to use names in things like Civ, but it has to be heavily negotiated.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I'm neither New Zealander, nor Maori; however, I do know quite a number of both (and have spent time in NZ and in Maori villages) and have talked with them about the situation of Maoris in NZ compared to the aboriginal peoples of Australia and the US. So I can offer a few insights from what I have been told but I am far from an expert.


Many Maoris do love this side of their culture and do play it up, but it isn't all of their culture. The young, male Maoris are often the most "visible" Maoris that you see outside of NZ. The overwhelming majority that people see and remember are quite buff guys and are keen to play to their culture. But other members of that culture do get a bit frustrated that the one thing people think of about Maori culture is warriors. When you have a long culture that is so complex, broad and vivid but is so unknown doesn't make them crybabies if they don't want it to be shown in a game like Civ. Civ strips so much of a culture away and limits it to one or two things (Romans had legions. Carthage had Elephants. Egypt were cultural.) and when your culture is already only known along such limited lines that isn't as enticing an offer as it is for a group already well known. Sure some people will learn more about the Maoris, but the vast majority will just have their stereotypes reinforced.



New Zealand is leagues ahead of the US and Australia in terms of aboriginal and new arrivals living alongside each other. NZ children learn Maori languages at school (if not all of them, a very large number) and are exposed to their culture. That's not to say it is perfect, or even good. There is a lot more than can be done, but they do seem to be actively moving in a good direction. Still, for a very long time the Maori people and culture were pushed to the fringes and squashed. So you are totally right about wanting to be portrayed properly, which a game like Civ cannot really do.



It's easy to say we have changed when we aren't on the ****** end of almost all the important stats. Lower life expectancy. Fewer opportunities. Lower education. Higher incarceration rates for same crimes etc. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who tell both Australian and NZ indigenous people to suck it up, get over it and do things "our way". So while there are definitely more people who are positive about their culture and people these days, that's probably not worth a huge amount when you are on the receiving end.

You also have to remember that CivFanatics aren't representative of the community. There will be FAR more people on this forum that will learn about or appreciate the culture of the Civs included. But average gamers?


Indigenous Australians definitely have a taboo about naming and depicting the dead. When there are news stories that feature deceased, or potentially deceased, Aborigines the casters announce that it will be the case so that Aborigines and Torres Straight islanders can tune out (at least on the respectable news providers) Even capturing the image of a living person can be an issue in places.

There is always easy solution. Not to include indigenous people in to the game at all. I just wonder if it wouldn't strenhthen stereotype they are not deserve term civilization and their culture is somehow worse. Pop culture is a window for a world for mases

 

[Patine]

I'm neither New Zealander, nor Maori; however, I do know quite a number of both (and have spent time in NZ and in Maori villages) and have talked with them about the situation of Maoris in NZ compared to the aboriginal peoples of Australia and the US. So I can offer a few insights from what I have been told but I am far from an expert.


Many Maoris do love this side of their culture and do play it up, but it isn't all of their culture. The young, male Maoris are often the most "visible" Maoris that you see outside of NZ. The overwhelming majority that people see and remember are quite buff guys and are keen to play to their culture. But other members of that culture do get a bit frustrated that the one thing people think of about Maori culture is warriors. When you have a long culture that is so complex, broad and vivid but is so unknown doesn't make them crybabies if they don't want it to be shown in a game like Civ. Civ strips so much of a culture away and limits it to one or two things (Romans had legions. Carthage had Elephants. Egypt were cultural.) and when your culture is already only known along such limited lines that isn't as enticing an offer as it is for a group already well known. Sure some people will learn more about the Maoris, but the vast majority will just have their stereotypes reinforced.



New Zealand is leagues ahead of the US and Australia in terms of aboriginal and new arrivals living alongside each other. NZ children learn Maori languages at school (if not all of them, a very large number) and are exposed to their culture. That's not to say it is perfect, or even good. There is a lot more than can be done, but they do seem to be actively moving in a good direction. Still, for a very long time the Maori people and culture were pushed to the fringes and squashed. So you are totally right about wanting to be portrayed properly, which a game like Civ cannot really do.



It's easy to say we have changed when we aren't on the ****** end of almost all the important stats. Lower life expectancy. Fewer opportunities. Lower education. Higher incarceration rates for same crimes etc. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who tell both Australian and NZ indigenous people to suck it up, get over it and do things "our way". So while there are definitely more people who are positive about their culture and people these days, that's probably not worth a huge amount when you are on the receiving end.

You also have to remember that CivFanatics aren't representative of the community. There will be FAR more people on this forum that will learn about or appreciate the culture of the Civs included. But average gamers?


Indigenous Australians definitely have a taboo about naming and depicting the dead. When there are news stories that feature deceased, or potentially deceased, Aborigines the casters announce that it will be the case so that Aborigines and Torres Straight islanders can tune out (at least on the respectable news providers) Even capturing the image of a living person can be an issue in places.

There is always easy solution. Not to include indigenous people in to the game at all. I just wonder if it wouldn't strenhthen stereotype they are not deserve term civilization and their culture is somehow worse. Pop culture is a window for a world for mases

"At the point no living person remains who personally witnessed the events, history, in a proprietary sense, is the public domain of the human species as a whole,"
-A contentious, controversial quote even when it was made by a 1970's university historian, but one that does have a certain pragmatic element to it, otherwise history, realistically, falls to a state of piecemeal unapproachability to most and romanticization, protection from objective scrutiny, and impunity to engage in historical revision by those groups claiming "propriety."

 

[Naktis]

oh my I hope not , some Civ choices are questionable. And leader choices are even more crazy, and so many big civs missing. If this is real , then 3rd expanssion is a must.

oh and no ancient Civ or leader looks even less real now.

 

[Canterbury]

omg, I always considered Maori as a tough badass with an interesting culture, not sensitive crybabies.
Isn't being a part of pop culture Civilization game a proof your culture means something. Is interesting, worthy and recognized.

Many Maoris do love this side of their culture and do play it up, but it isn't all of their culture. The young, male Maoris are often the most "visible" Maoris that you see outside of NZ. The overwhelming majority that people see and remember are quite buff guys and are keen to play to their culture. But other members of that culture do get a bit frustrated that the one thing people think of about Maori culture is warriors. When you have a long culture that is so complex, broad and vivid but is so unknown doesn't make them crybabies if they don't want it to be shown in a game like Civ. Civ strips so much of a culture away and limits it to one or two things (Romans had legions. Carthage had Elephants. Egypt were cultural.) and when your culture is already only known along such limited lines that isn't as enticing an offer as it is for a group already well known. Sure some people will learn more about the Maoris, but the vast majority will just have their stereotypes reinforced.

If the leak is true about Tāwhiao being the leader of a Māori civ, then that might dispel a few of the more common Māori stereotypes. He was one of most pacifist leaders of his time, probably due to his unwillingness to risk further conflict with the colonial government. He was also something of an isolationist, which is understandable given the devastation of the Land Wars. TBH though, there's little else that stands out about his leadership: he was religious but not unusually so for his time; and he did try to engage in diplomacy, but honestly he didn't get very far. However, Tāwhiao was the Kingitanga leader during one of the darkest periods of Māori history. If you wanted to base a unique leader ability on his life, you might think about an ability to better withstand dark ages. It'd certainly be unique.

Personally though, I would have chosen a different leader altogether. There are plenty to choose from: for a cultural (or even science) leader, perhaps Āpirana Ngata; for diplomacy, either Ngata or Te Atairangikaahu (especially if you're looking for more female leaders); for religion, either Te Kooti, Rātana or Te Ua Haumēne. And of course we have no shortage of militaristic leaders: my picks would be Hongi Hika, Te Wherowhero (Tāwhiao's father), Tītokowaru or Te Rauparaha.

There is always easy solution. Not to include indigenous people in to the game at all. I just wonder if it wouldn't strenhthen stereotype they are not deserve term civilization and their culture is somehow worse. Pop culture is a window for a world for mases

Yeah, I doubt that exclusion would be helpful as well. If people are worried about how to portray a certain culture, just ask some of their cultural experts for guidance. And then make sure to actually pay respect to their views about it.

Take the film Moana. Disney consulted with cultures from across Polynesia, and even though there were a couple of specific issues that came up, overall a lot of Polynesians (including Māori) were thrilled to see our cultures portrayed on the big screen. They did a pretty good job too IMO – even if it was a safe, cookie-cutter representation (but hey, it's Disney).

 

[acluewithout]

There is always easy solution. Not to include indigenous people in to the game at all. I just wonder if it wouldn't strenhthen stereotype they are not deserve term civilization and their culture is somehow worse. Pop culture is a window for a world for mases

Well...

Look. I think it’s a good thing indigenous people get represented in a AAA game. Exposure. Diversity. All that good stuff.

But. I’m not sure Civ can possibly represent such communities well. Australian aboriginals (by and large) didn’t farm and didn’t have cities. Lots of culture. Very sophisticated. But mostly no farming or city-fying.

At its most fundamental level, Civ requires factions to build cities. So, how does that work?

I guess one could come up with some non-city mechanics for “nomadic” people. But that’s going to end up lame, pidgeon holing certain Civs into a no city thing. And how would that work as alternate history - like, they can’t ever develop city tech. Probably end up pretty patronising too.

As a point, Venice has the same problem. The whole “can’t found another city” is cool, but makes zero sense. It’s not like Venice couldn’t colonise other countries etc. It’s just for various historical reasons it just ended up what it is. But I guess with Venice you’re not risking offending anyone.

At best, you can maybe rationalise peoples in the game that historically didn’t have cities and in Civ can build cities being sort of alternate history versions of those people. Or, you can pretend the cities aren’t really cities but just represent concentration of population in a region - although the tiny Lille buildings and building granaries is a give away.

I do wonder if Civ missed a trick not requiring players to research farming and or settlers and or “cities”. It’d take a lot of rejigging but it might be kind of cool. But probably not worth it, really. Civ clearly wants you to jump in just as your empire is getting underway, so researching farms etc. would maybe just delay getting the game started.

As a related point. Does anyone feel like at the start of the game there should be a limit how far your scouts can travel? If you want to, you can really explore crazy amounts of the map early, particularly if you use indestructible great people.

 

[Patine]

As a point, Venice has the same problem. The whole “can’t found another city” is cool, but makes zero sense. It’s not like Venice couldn’t colonise other countries etc. It’s just for various historical reasons it just ended up what it is. But I guess with Venice you’re not risking offending anyone.

No one to be offended? You don't think there's anyone in Venice anymore who has a stake and care for their culture and it's portrayal? There was recently a referendum over whether the Veneto Region desired sovereign independence from Italy, because of, among other factors, a distinct society and culture. Do you believe that only non-European descended cultures have any right to take offense to any highly inaccurate or slanderous portrayals of their ancestors? This isn't sarcasm, this is a food for thought question.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

No one to be offended? You don't think there's anyone in Venice anymore who has a stake and care for their culture and it's portrayal? There was recently a referendum over whether the Veneto Region desired sovereign independence from Italy, because of, among other factors, a distinct society and culture. Do you believe that only non-European descended cultures have any right to take offense to any highly inaccurate or slanderous portrayals of their ancestors? This isn't sarcasm, this is a food for thought question.

Don't you think there is a huge difference between a sense of your identity and desire for political independence/autonomy and being touched by "stereotypical image" in a video game?

Long story short. I know one side of the story with Indigenous People and I understand they can sometimes overreact and it is justified for me. But there is a second side of the story:
Don't go absurdly!
From the one hand, No one would give Arabian Civ Talib Terrorist unit - because it is obviously stupid and offensive. But from the other side:
Do Spanish are offended by "Spanish Inquisition" in a game"? It can reduce them to stereotypical catholic zealots
Do English are offended by "Sun never Set"? It can reduce them to stereotypical brutal colonists
Do Russians are offended by making them "snow" civilization? It can reduce them to stereotypical vodka drinkers living among bears
Do Mexicans as a ancestors od Aztecs are offended by Eagle Warrior ability? It can reduce them to stereotypical bloodthirst savages eating beating hearts
And still Arabs in Civilization game are still strong religious civ. Do they feel offended? It can reduce them to stereotypical Muslim terrorists.
No, they don't because there is a limit of reason. And Venice example is the one!
It is really hard to imagine how can you feel offended by "cant found another city" trait in a video game. Please, guys, this is Monty Python world...

 

[acluewithout]

No one to be offended? You don't think there's anyone in Venice anymore who has a stake and care for their culture and it's portrayal? There was recently a referendum over whether the Veneto Region desired sovereign independence from Italy, because of, among other factors, a distinct society and culture. Do you believe that only non-European descended cultures have any right to take offense to any highly inaccurate or slanderous portrayals of their ancestors? This isn't sarcasm, this is a food for thought question.

If it helps, my sentence was a bit of a fragment. I guess it should read “you’re not risking offending anyone by limiting their ability to build settlers”.

Are people in Venice offended they’re represented in Civ 5 by a faction that can’t build settlers?

Is that ... a thing people can be offended about?

If I’m wrong, then okay. But it just seemed to me a Mechanic that no one could get particularly offended about.

 

[Patine]

Don't you think there is a huge difference between a sense of your identity and desire for political independence/autonomy and being touched by "stereotypical image" in a video game?

Long story short. I know one side of the story with Indigenous People and I understand they can sometimes overreact and it is justified for me. But there is a second side of the story:
Don't go absurdly!
From the one hand, No one would give Arabian Civ Talib Terrorist unit - because it is obviously stupid and offensive. But from the other side:
Do Spanish are offended by "Spanish Inquisition" in a game"? It can reduce them to stereotypical catholic zealots
Do English are offended by "Sun never Set"? It can reduce them to stereotypical brutal colonists
Do Russians are offended by making them "snow" civilization? It can reduce them to stereotypical vodka drinkers living among bears
Do Mexicans as a ancestors od Aztecs are offended by Eagle Warrior ability? It can reduce them to stereotypical bloodthirst savages eating beating hearts
And still Arabs in Civilization game are still strong religious civ. Do they feel offended? It can reduce them to stereotypical Muslim terrorists.
No, they don't because there is a limit of reason. And Venice example is the one!
It is really hard to imagine how can you feel offended by "cant found another city" trait in a video game. Please, guys, this is Monty Python world...

My whole heritage on my mother's side of the family is from Scotland. And there are a lot, I mean a LOT of really, really bad, unflattering, even downright crude and slanderous stereotypes about people from Scotland - they make me cringe, I would rather do without them, and only a small minority of Scottish and Scottish-descended people are actually "cashing in" on self-perpetuation and self-promotion of those horrid stereotypes. But, in the modern view of things, because Scots are White and are not Indigenous (except maybe to Scotland, but the word is never used in that way) they aren't considered "at all the same, whatsoever" to equally vile stereotypes of Indigenous people, and we're not allowed to consider these things at all "offensive" in the same way in polite society.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

My whole heritage on my mother's side of the family is from Scotland. And there are a lot, I mean a LOT of really, really bad, unflattering, even downright crude and slanderous stereotypes about people from Scotland - they make me cringe, I would rather do without them, and only a small minority of Scottish and Scottish-descended people are actually "cashing in" on self-perpetuation and self-promotion of those horrid stereotypes. But, in the modern view of things, because Scots are White and are not Indigenous (except maybe to Scotland, but the word is never used in that way) they aren't considered "at all the same, whatsoever" to equally vile stereotypes of Indigenous people, and we're not allowed to consider these things at all "offensive" in the same way in polite society.

Because they aren't offensive in the same way. They're offensive, but not in the same way.

It's like saying calling a light-skinned person by the h-word is the equivalent of calling a dark-skinned person by the n-word. You shouldn't do either, and polite people don't. But you can't equate the current state of Scots and the Scot culture in the U.K. with the current state of indigenous peoples and their culture in Canada (and I assume in the U.S. and Australia, too, if less so in N.Z. per the above comments).

Context matters.

If it helps, my sentence was a bit of a fragment. I guess it should read “you’re not risking offending anyone by limiting their ability to build settlers”.

Are people in Venice offended they’re represented in Civ 5 by a faction that can’t build settlers?

Is that ... a thing people can be offended about?

If I’m wrong, then okay. But it just seemed to me a Mechanic that no one could get particularly offended about.

It's actually the first thing I think about when I think of Venice. Their young people never leave home. Do you know why there are no moving companies in Venice? It's because no one's ever left! What do you call a Venetian who builds a house outside of Venice? Lost!

I'm pretty sure "failure to launch" syndrome started in Venice. At least, that's what I learned from Civ 5.​

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

My whole heritage on my mother's side of the family is from Scotland. And there are a lot, I mean a LOT of really, really bad, unflattering, even downright crude and slanderous stereotypes about people from Scotland - they make me cringe, I would rather do without them, and only a small minority of Scottish and Scottish-descended people are actually "cashing in" on self-perpetuation and self-promotion of those horrid stereotypes. But, in the modern view of things, because Scots are White and are not Indigenous (except maybe to Scotland, but the word is never used in that way) they aren't considered "at all the same, whatsoever" to equally vile stereotypes of Indigenous people, and we're not allowed to consider these things at all "offensive" in the same way in polite society.

Let's stick to the topic.
We are talking about a video game called Civilization. Not stereotypes general.
Are you as a half Scotish feel somehow offended with a way Scotland is shown in a game?

 

[Zaarin]

Because they aren't offensive in the same way. They're offensive, but not in the same way.

It's like saying calling a light-skinned person by the h-word is the equivalent of calling a dark-skinned person by the n-word. You shouldn't do either, and polite people don't. But you can't equate the current state of Scots and the Scot culture in the U.K. with the current state of indigenous peoples and their culture in Canada (and I assume in the U.S. and Australia, too, if less so in N.Z. per the above comments).

...Actually, the Scots and Irish were subjected to very similar treatment as the indigenous peoples of America. True, that hasn't continued into the present as it has in the New World, but historically the Scots and Irish have faced colonization, cultural erasure (there's a reason both Irish and Gaelic are moribund), romanticized depictions as "noble savages," etc.

 

[Guandao]

I think this is a hoax.....
A third Southeast Asian Civ, and an Aboriginal Australian Civ? Sounds unlikely.

 

[AmazonQueen]

...Actually, the Scots and Irish were subjected to very similar treatment as the indigenous peoples of America. True, that hasn't continued into the present as it has in the New World, but historically the Scots and Irish have faced colonization, cultural erasure (there's a reason both Irish and Gaelic are moribund), romanticized depictions as "noble savages," etc.

As did the Welsh.
I remember when I was growing up in Scotland fellow students being told off for speaking Scots (once considered a dialect of English, now officially a language in its own right).

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

...Actually, the Scots and Irish were subjected to very similar treatment as the indigenous peoples of America. True, that hasn't continued into the present as it has in the New World, but historically the Scots and Irish have faced colonization, cultural erasure (there's a reason both Irish and Gaelic are moribund), romanticized depictions as "noble savages," etc.

In school, I was taught that Indians were uncivilized savages saved from themselves by the heroes of our history. In the school yard, I was taught that natives were lazy, dishonest drunks. "Indian giver" was the term used for anybody who wanted something back after trading it away.

While I was going to school, aboriginal children of my age were required, by our government, to live on residential schools away from their parents. There, the majority of them were abused, sexually and otherwise, by the "teachers" and administrators who were supposed to be looking after them.

The Indian Act, passed in 1876 but a consolidation of laws that pre-existed that date, survived in pretty much a consistent form until 1985. Under the Indian Act, aboriginal people, regardless of their age or education status, were wards of the state, unable to exercise basic rights of citizenship such as voting in elections or owning property.

Aboriginal people in Canada today have roughly twice the unemployment rate of other Canadians and much lower education levels (likely related factors). Aboriginal women are many times more likely than other Canadian women to be abducted and killed by strangers. In Canada, a country with a surfeit of fresh water, many native communities do not have safe drinking water, because the dumping of poisonous effluents into the water reservoirs used by native communities has, over the years, been authorized when it would never have been authorized into water reservoirs used by other Canadian communities.

I know this is a site for a game about history, but I think it's an error to suggest that the current concerns of aboriginal nations about how their people are portrayed is the equivalent of the concerns of Scots, because bad things were done to the Scots in the past, too. The majority of Scots did not themselves face in their lifetime, nor were they raised by parents who faced in their lifetime, the type of systemic discrimination that the majority of aboriginals in Canada have either experienced, or been raised by parents who experienced first hand.

 

[Zaarin]

I know this is a site for a game about history, but I think it's an error to suggest that the current concerns of aboriginal nations about how their people are portrayed is the equivalent of the concerns of Scots, because bad things were done to the Scots in the past, too.

I don't recall making such a claim. I was objecting to the idea that white people have not historically been colonized, faced cultural or literal genocide, etc. I'm well aware of what aboriginal people have gone through in North America and think that their cultures should be treated with respect and dignity (as should all cultures), but they do not have a monopoly on human suffering. Human history is ugly and not for the faint of heart.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please remember that this thread concerns whether the leaked list is real or not. We are wandering off course. Back to topic please.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Does nobody but me have an issue with the fact that Gran Columbia and Inca would be literally right on top of each other? To me that gives lie to the fact that this list could be true because it's a completely unbalanced list. There is no way someone could start up a "Hey let's play a TSL game with all of the Vesuvius civs!" without a glaring problem right from go.

Native Colombians are descendants of the Chibcha/Muisca.

They would be as close as Scotland/Dutch and Korea/Mongolia for the Rise and Fall Civs.
It would be strange to get 2 new civs from South America in an expansion, but who knows at this point. If this is true I doubt the Muisca will be seen, however at the same I've wanted Colombia with Simon Bolivar, and I'd like that to be our last colonial Civ.

 

[Guandao]

They would be as close as Scotland/Dutch and Korea/Mongolia for the Rise and Fall Civs.
It would be strange to get 2 new civs from South America in an expansion, but who knows at this point. If this is true I doubt the Muisca will be seen, however at the same I've wanted Colombia with Simon Bolivar, and I'd like that to be our last colonial Civ.

What unique units/infrastructure would a Gran Colombia Civ get?