South American representation in Civilization 7

[Krajzen]

My top pick would be Getúlio Vargas, he's the single most important figure to understand contemporary Brazil. But, with the opportunity opened by their new approach to leaders, we could get Luís Carlos Prestes, the knight of hope.

Is Getulio Vargas controversial as a leader because of his harsh authoritarianism? Personally I would have no problem with that, as I find him very interesting and with a lot of contributions to Brazil as far as I read about him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he were controversial.


Anyway, I have a refreshing challenge for you guys. What civs would you suggest if you had to propose:
- Native civ from Argentina/Chile/Uruguay area which is not Mapuche
- Native civ from Brazil which is not Tupi
- Native civ from Colombia which is not Muisca
- Native civ from Venezuela
- Native civ from Ecuador
- Native civ from the area between Guatemala and Panama (Maya don't count)

 

[Vahnstad]

Is Getulio Vargas controversial as a leader because of his harsh authoritarianism? Personally I would have no problem with that, as I find him very interesting and with a lot of contributions to Brazil as far as I read about him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he were controversial.


Anyway, I have a refreshing challenge for you guys. What civs would you suggest if you had to propose:
- Native civ from Costa Rica/Panama/Nicaragua/Honduras/Salvador (Mayan fringes don't count)

Miskito

 

[RedCourtJester]

Is Getulio Vargas controversial as a leader because of his harsh authoritarianism? Personally I would have no problem with that, as I find him very interesting and with a lot of contributions to Brazil as far as I read about him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he were controversial.


Anyway, I have a refreshing challenge for you guys. What civs would you suggest if you had to propose:
- Native civ from Argentina/Chile/Uruguay area which is not Mapuche
- Native civ from Brazil which is not Tupi
- Native civ from Colombia which is not Muisca
- Native civ from Venezuela
- Native civ from Ecuador
- Native civ from the area between Guatemala and Panama (Maya don't count)

1. Guarani, easy. but honestly I don't think they preclude the Mapuche returning as much as Argentina would.
2. Arawak, again pretty easy. I actually think they would work better than the Tupi as an origin point for western SA and the Caribbean, and the Tupi could still get vicarious representation through the Guarani.
3. Again, Arawak, same reason as above.
4. Again, Arawak, same reason as above.
5. I'm good, I don't need a native civ from Ecuador.
6. The Muisca are probably the best representative of Guatalama/Panama, since they were also Chibchan. But if we had to pick someone specifically from that area, making a Guaymi blob of the Ngabere and Bokota seems maybe catching the best geographic and population representation.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yes we need a dislike option for your comment.

If we go by these standards, 90% of leaders should be excluded.

Marx and Che should not be controversial, that's just your personal opinion.

it just sounds like they don’t want any communists. pol pot, mao and stalin are obviously unacceptable but the others are fine?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Is Getulio Vargas controversial as a leader because of his harsh authoritarianism? Personally I would have no problem with that, as I find him very interesting and with a lot of contributions to Brazil as far as I read about him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he were controversial.


Anyway, I have a refreshing challenge for you guys. What civs would you suggest if you had to propose:
- Native civ from Argentina/Chile/Uruguay area which is not Mapuche
- Native civ from Brazil which is not Tupi
- Native civ from Colombia which is not Muisca
- Native civ from Venezuela
- Native civ from Ecuador
- Native civ from the area between Guatemala and Panama (Maya don't count)

guarani, yanomami, caribs/arawak, caribs/arawak, i think inca is fine for ecuador (and you can include aymara to cover bolivia instead), miskito

 

[Thenewwwguy]

since non-political icons are acceptable for civ leadership and ppl have brought up boredom with pedro AND getulio vargas potentially being controversial, I wonder if brazil might be able to do Pele. Obviously he died very recently but he’s almost unilaterally uncontroversial, one of the most influential sportspeople of all time, and has had an impact in soccer as meaningful as some of the other non-political leaders

 

[Psychotronics]

Is Getulio Vargas controversial as a leader because of his harsh authoritarianism? Personally I would have no problem with that, as I find him very interesting and with a lot of contributions to Brazil as far as I read about him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he were controversial.

Not really. Vargas died a long, long time ago. The vast majority of Brazilians don't have any sort of passionate feelings about Vargas. Only communists and trabalhistas (heirs to the political current he started) would have strong opinions on him, the former negative, the latter, positive.
Vargas was a very complex figure: while I would surely characterize his Estado Novo regime as fascist, he was also an instrumental figure in pushing back against a possible military dictatorship during the 50's. He's contradictory enough to have been both a dictator and a democrat.
Besides, every single Brazilian leader is somewhat controversial. D. Pedro II, who was featured in both games, was responsible for the Paraguay War, one of the bloodiest affairs in our history. It's just how our history is: we were a colony, then a military dictatorship, then an oligarchic republic, then civil dictatorship, then we had a very brief period of democracy before plunging back into another military dictatorship, which only ends in the 90's (and even then, the civilian leaders were Sarney and Collor, universally considered awful presidents). It leaves very little room for picking someone who isn't controversial in some way.

There’s no way that they’re going to add Che Guevara.

They should not, but, unfortunately, they are. I'm a communist myself, but I know Che Guevara would receive a lot of backlash, probably more than Marx. Lenin, too, shouldn't be a controversial pick: even if you're against communist and everything Lenin stood for, you should be able to agree he's unquestionably the most important political figure of the 20th century, since the rise of the Soviet Union set the stage for every important conflict from 1917 to 1991. But this isn't the world we live in and people will be biased against leaders they disagree with politically.

since non-political icons are acceptable for civ leadership and ppl have brought up boredom with pedro AND getulio vargas potentially being controversial, I wonder if brazil might be able to do Pele. Obviously he died very recently but he’s almost unilaterally uncontroversial, one of the most influential sportspeople of all time, and has had an impact in soccer as meaningful as some of the other non-political leaders

No. Absolutely not. Brazil is more than soccer, having Pele leading our nation would be a travesty. I would make it my personal mission to make everyone know how hard Firaxis dropped the ball if they did this.

 

[Xandinho]

- Native civ from Brazil which is not Tupi

Guarani: can appear in Exploration or Modern. They were highly significant and left a great legacy and influence in southern Brazil, Argentina, and especially Paraguay.

Arawak: they span Brazil, northern South America, and the Caribbean. They could be represented as Taino, but I think Arawak is more comprehensive, and they could include Taino elements here.

Xinguans: the people of Kuhikugu and the surrounding region. I think they could appear in the Antiquity Age, with Kuhikugu as their associated wonder.

Marajoara: a fairly obscure civilization from Marajó Island. Teso could be their unique improvement, but we don’t know much else to compose a playable civilization.

Amazonians: there are many tribes in the Amazon Rainforest that could form a "blob" civilization, with many of them uncontacted. I don't know if this civ idea would be very appropriate, though.

since non-political icons are acceptable for civ leadership and ppl have brought up boredom with pedro AND getulio vargas potentially being controversial, I wonder if brazil might be able to do Pele. Obviously he died very recently but he’s almost unilaterally uncontroversial, one of the most influential sportspeople of all time, and has had an impact in soccer as meaningful as some of the other non-political leaders

I think Pelé would be very recent. For non-governing Brazilian leaders, I suggest Machado de Assis, Santos Dumont and Oscar Niemeyer, but I think the latter is also quite recent. There are some military figures who would be really cool, like Maria Quitéria.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Guarani: can appear in Exploration or Modern. They were highly significant and left a great legacy and influence in southern Brazil, Argentina, and especially Paraguay.

Arawak: they span Brazil, northern South America, and the Caribbean. They could be represented as Taino, but I think Arawak is more comprehensive, and they could include Taino elements here.

Xinguans: the people of Kuhikugu and the surrounding region. I think they could appear in the Antiquity Age, with Kuhikugu as their associated wonder.

Marajoara: a fairly obscure civilization from Marajó Island. Teso could be their unique improvement, but we don’t know much else to compose a playable civilization.

Amazonians: there are many tribes in the Amazon Rainforest that could form a "blob" civilization, with many of them uncontacted. I don't know if this civ idea would be very appropriate, though.

I think Pelé would be very recent. For non-governing Brazilian leaders, I suggest Machado de Assis, Santos Dumont and Oscar Niemeyer, but I think the latter is also quite recent. There are some military figures who would be really cool, like Maria Quitéria.

guarani are still around as well—paraguay speaks majority guarani, more than spanish

Not really. Vargas died a long, long time ago. The vast majority of Brazilians don't have any sort of passionate feelings about Vargas. Only communists and trabalhistas (heirs to the political current he started) would have strong opinions on him, the former negative, the latter, positive.
Vargas was a very complex figure: while I would surely characterize his Estado Novo regime as fascist, he was also an instrumental figure in pushing back against a possible military dictatorship during the 50's. He's contradictory enough to have been both a dictator and a democrat.
Besides, every single Brazilian leader is somewhat controversial. D. Pedro II, who was featured in both games, was responsible for the Paraguay War, one of the bloodiest affairs in our history. It's just how our history is: we were a colony, then a military dictatorship, then an oligarchic republic, then civil dictatorship, then we had a very brief period of democracy before plunging back into another military dictatorship, which only ends in the 90's (and even then, the civilian leaders were Sarney and Collor, universally considered awful presidents). It leaves very little room for picking someone who isn't controversial in some way.


They should not, but, unfortunately, they are. I'm a communist myself, but I know Che Guevara would receive a lot of backlash, probably more than Marx. Lenin, too, shouldn't be a controversial pick: even if you're against communist and everything Lenin stood for, you should be able to agree he's unquestionably the most important political figure of the 20th century, since the rise of the Soviet Union set the stage for every important conflict from 1917 to 1991. But this isn't the world we live in and people will be biased against leaders they disagree with politically.



No. Absolutely not. Brazil is more than soccer, having Pele leading our nation would be a travesty. I would make it my personal mission to make everyone know how hard Firaxis dropped the ball if they did this.

fair enough re: pele. i get where you’re coming from (though i do think to an extent civ picking one facet will always come across as implying that’s “just” their only relevant factor)

re: communists, it’s worth noting that a lot of the leaders that ppl take issue with are basically *only* controversial in the US—and even then only in certain parts. Marx is fully uncontroversial, unless you’re a politician of a certain persuasion (he was only an academic, for one, and had no interest in politics). Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Che and others of that level are genuinely only largely controversial in certain parts of the states, but most places probably don’t have negative views of them—there’s even a lenin statue in seattle. Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot are obviously not possible (all for reasons that aren’t their ideology and moreso because they were raging authoritarians who killed a ton of people). Marx and Ho Chi Minh are probably the safest communist inclusions bar them picking a lesser profile leader like Lumumba or Sankara.

The real reason leaders like Ho Chi Minh, Castro and Che are unlikely is that Civ hasn’t ever really had leaders who died any more recently than the 50s (wilhelmina is the only exception, i think, and she died in 1962, so still nearly 60 years before her inclusion in civ)

 

[untitledjuan]

They should not, but, unfortunately, they are. I'm a communist myself, but I know Che Guevara would receive a lot of backlash, probably more than Marx.

I think Che Guevara is controversial not because of him being a Communist, but because of him having led a terrorist guerrilla that killed lots of people and led massive executions. His actions led to yet another terrible Cuban dictatorship. That's the main reason he shouldn't be in the game, the families of the victims are still around. Someone being a Communist per se isn't something that would unqualify them from being in the game, I guess. Even if I don't agree with the ideology, I think Marx could be an appropriate "Communist" representation and much more accepted than having Lenin or Stalin.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Vargas was a very complex figure: while I would surely characterize his Estado Novo regime as fascist, he was also an instrumental figure in pushing back against a possible military dictatorship during the 50's. He's contradictory enough to have been both a dictator and a democrat.

almost makes it sound like he’s the only fascist who could realistically even be in civ. no way any other fascist would be remotely acceptable in-game

 

[untitledjuan]

The real reason leaders like Ho Chi Minh, Castro and Che are unlikely is that Civ hasn’t ever really had leaders who died any more recently than the 50s (wilhelmina is the only exception, i think, and she died in 1962, so still nearly 60 years before her inclusion in civ)

Indira Gandhi appeared back in Civ2, I think, she died in 1984, 12 years before the release of Civ2.

 

[Vahnstad]

I think Che Guevara is controversial not because of him being a Communist, but because of him having led a terrorist guerrilla that killed lots of people and led massive executions. His actions led to yet another terrible Cuban dictatorship. That's the main reason he shouldn't be in the game, the families of the victims are still around. Someone being a Communist per se isn't something that would unqualify them from being in the game, I guess. Even if I don't agree with the ideology, I think Marx could be an appropriate "Communist" representation and much more accepted than having Lenin or Stalin.

By that logic, every revolutionary leader should be persona non grata, including leaders such as Napoleon.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I think Che Guevara is controversial not because of him being a Communist, but because of him having led a terrorist guerrilla that killed lots of people and led massive executions. His actions led to yet another terrible Cuban dictatorship. That's the main reason he shouldn't be in the game, the families of the victims are still around. Someone being a Communist per se isn't something that would unqualify them from being in the game, I guess. Even if I don't agree with the ideology, I think Marx could be an appropriate "Communist" representation and much more accepted than having Lenin or Stalin.

the real reason che wouldn’t be in game is because this statement is in and of itself loaded and political—within and outside of cuba. A lot of the most vocal victims of castro’s were slave-owning aristocrats who owned sugar plantations, and that’s why they hold him in such disregard.

meanwhile, in cuba itself, both castro and che are far more complicated political figures—considered to have made mistakes but also liberators of cuba. a lot of cuba’s current issues are more of american cause, and a lot of cubans take pride in the fact that even despite political interference and the embargo, they produce and export more doctors than any other place on earth, are one of the few places on earth where gender-affirming care is fully covered by healthcare, the place of discovery of a lung cancer vaccine, and a place that helped much of the developing world from succumbing worse to covid. healthcare in cuba is free and life expectancy there is higher than a lot of countries you wouldn’t expect.

che also is in a unique position where his image and message have transcended him as a person—his worldwide perception (especially in the developing world) is that he’s a liberator, the pre-eminent image of worldwide workers liberation, from both capitalism but also the boot of imperial forces.

Indira Gandhi appeared back in Civ2, I think, she died in 1984, 12 years before the release of Civ2.

good point-i did forget about this, fwiw, i don’t really count her. civ ii leaders didn’t mean anything and they probably included her at that time bcs she was the only female leader for india they could even think of (rather than someone much better like the rani of jhansi or nur jahan)

 

[Inotrobot]

As we've seen, the base game will only feature one South American Civilization throughout all ages. We will only have the Inca in the Exploration Era. Moreover, the future upcoming DLCs have no plan of adding additional South American Civilizations. (We get a South American leader, though: Simón Bolívar.)

What does that mean for future South American reprrsentation in the game? Which additional South American civilizations would you like to make an appearance in Civilization 7?

Is Che Guevera Possible?

 

[untitledjuan]

almost makes it sound like he’s the only fascist who could realistically even be in civ. no way any other fascist would be remotely acceptable in-game

The thing is that Latin American politics are veeery complex and neatly classifying a politician into a single category is complicated in this region. There have been leaders who claim to be Socialist, but have Capitalist policies and leaders who claim to be Socialist and have very Capitalist policies. Some claim some things in their speeches, but end up doing completely different things in their actions. It really is a mess and the "conventional" political labels become a bit blurry when dealing with 20th and even 21st century Latin American politicians. Many people even think that politicians just claim to follow the most popular ideology to win votes and popularity, but might end up doing completely different things. I think every Latin American leader from 1830 to the present will inevitably spark some controversy due to this.

For this reasons, I think Latin American leaders should be either from the Independence period, or more recent cultural figures (such as writers, artists, etc.) instead of former presidents. For instance, Frida Kahlo, who has been suggested before could work, if it weren't for her image being completely redefined by post-modern pop culture. Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz has also been proposed as "Mexican representation", which I think could work very well as a "Mexican" leader.

 

[untitledjuan]

By that logic, every revolutionary leader should be persona non grata, including leaders such as Napoleon.

The thing is proximity to the present. Sure, if 200 years have passed and there are no living people who remember or directly suffered the consequences of a leader's actions, then it becomes a lot less problematics, in my opinion. The older the leader, the easier it is to evaluate as a whole the actions of its consequences.

 

[Venceslau Pietro Pietra]

Pelé, the greatest Brazilian of all time, would be a awesome choice.
indeed, Edson Arantes died too recently, but Pelé trascend him.

Senna could also work.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The thing is that Latin American politics are veeery complex and neatly classifying a politician into a single category is complicated in this region. There have been leaders who claim to be Socialist, but have Capitalist policies and leaders who claim to be Socialist and have very Capitalist policies. Some claim some things in their speeches, but end up doing completely different things in their actions. It really is a mess and the "conventional" political labels become a bit blurry when dealing with 20th and even 21st century Latin American politicians. Many people even think that politicians just claim to follow the most popular ideology to win votes and popularity, but might end up doing completely different things. I think every Latin American leader from 1830 to the present will inevitably spark some controversy due to this.

For this reasons, I think Latin American leaders should be either from the Independence period, or more recent cultural figures (such as writers, artists, etc.) instead of former presidents. For instance, Frida Kahlo, who has been suggested before could work, if it weren't for her image being completely redefined by post-modern pop culture. Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz has also been proposed as "Mexican representation", which I think could work very well as a "Mexican" leader.

yeah very good point—i tend to agree with that reading of latin american politics (which is also my best explanation for why there’s tons of crossover across the spectrum, and also why perceptions of corruption tend to be far more of a dealbreaker on a politician than anything else) lula or even AMLO is prob a great example of a socialist politician who does plenty of capitalist policies, for example.

I still think zapata would be my first choice for mexico,

The thing is proximity to the present. Sure, if 200 years have passed and there are no living people who remember or directly suffered the consequences of a leader's actions, then it becomes a lot less problematics, in my opinion. The older the leader, the easier it is to evaluate as a whole the actions of its consequences.

sure—even in this sense, i find it hard to fully say that che would be unique. wilhelmina was queen of the netherlands when they still were colonists of indonesia. teddy roosevelt continued the cleansing of native americans, including residential schools, as did wilfred laurier. queen victoria is one of the most hated people you could think of in lots of africa/india due to her overt involvement in and interest in colonizing. gandhi is both hated by hindu nationalists AND the indian left—one for being too moderate, and the other for his own hindu nationalist views (alongside the fact that he woudl sleep naked in the same bed as his nieces to “test himself”)

Pelé, the greatest Brazilian of all time, would be an awesome choice.
indeed, Edson Arantes died too recently, but Pelé trascend him.

Senna could also work.

senna is more controversial—like pele his persona transcends his person, but his legend has been tarnished by things like the fact that he had dated a 14 year old, and such.

 

[Evie]

I have a feeling that the recency rule may be stricter than you'd think - in the last three games (VII included) only two leaders (Halle Selassie and Wilhelmina) died after 1950, and both were reigning monarchs while no one who wasn't a monarch has made it who died after 1950.

Monarchs...often have pretty unique rules regarding the use of their image given that their image is either a sacred thing not to be used lightly if at all or a national symbol treated much the same as other national symbols. So I'm not sure I would consider these two indicative of what the cut-off for recency really is.