South American representation in Civilization 7

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, which (at least in a number of western countries), while no one who wasn't a monarch has made it who died after 1950.

Monarchs...usually have pretty unique rules regarding the use of their image given that their image is either a sacred thing not to be used lightly 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.
halle sellasie is also a really good example of a leader with victims who are still alive today who still made the game (while menelik ii is still hated in lots of ethiopia despite not having victims alive today) — also something to be said about how he’s also genuinely worshipped (rastafarianism)

but yeah—i’m of the opinion that the recency thing is a fairly hard stop—which if we assume is prob around 50 years at time of release (vaguely approximate to the deaths of these two when they released in civs 5 and 6), would allow for ho chi minh or che if they *theoretically* are included, but liek you noted, they’re not monarchs.
 
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.
I cannot deny that what I said about Che Guevara has political implications. After all, everyone's opinion about every person or event in history will inevitably be loaded with political and ideological implications. One could also say that your comments on Che Guevara also come loaded with political and ideological implications, and that isn't necessarily a bad or good thing, its an inevitable part of being a human with opinions. What makes it controversial, in terms of inclusion in a game like Civilization, is we are talking about events that took place not so long ago, that require more time to be evaluated and that inspire strong opinions loaded with modern political implications from all sides, that its better for the devs not to delve into that hurricane. Again, that's just my opinion.

Sure, Cuba has made lots of achievements related to healthcare, that's undeniable. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that countless human rights violations have been happening on the island during and after the Cuban Revolution. The USA has also made lots of achievements in various fields, yet that does not excuse their imperialistic, authoritarian and militaristic actions towards nations such as Mexico, Colombia and, of course, even Cuba. The Soviets advanced in space exploration, yet that does not excuse their authoritarian regime. We could go on with this, but it wouldn't take us anywhere, tbh.

Moreover, in places such as Colombia, were we have had to suffer more than 60 years of Communist military insurgency that has brought death, displacement, drug traffic and years of underdevelopment, the image of Che Guevara is not very well regarded, it represents to most Colombians an apology to the armed insurgency that has been one of the causes (together with right-wing paramilitaries) of more than 500,000 deaths from 1960 up to the present. I mention Colombia as it is the place I'm from and I can't talk about Che Guevara's perception here, but claiming that he represents liberation in the wider "developing world" (a rather dated concept) is a huge oversimplification. The concept of "developing world" is not very useful in cultural and anthropological terms to describe a common cultural attitude towards something. I bet Cubans think differently than Colombians, who have lived far different histories, let alone the opinions of Angolans, Vietnamese. There are countless opinions, narratives and perceptions in the so called "developed world", which is very, very far from being a unified cultural entity.
 
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.
Never heard about it, dont think that would be a issue, Senna case is similar to Pelé as this "national spirit figure bigger than man".
We already have Trunc Trac who is also a "national spirit " in some form instead of a more "historical " figure anyway.
Vargas is fine, he is controversial as any us president of his time
And i will only acept Pedro II again( a great leader, the best choice for a brazilian civ in the old style, but is overdone) if its a "Menino imperador " persona, imagine a 13yo leader in the mk combat diplomacy screen.
 
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”)
In that sense, you're right. For instance, Theodore Roosevelt would never be controversial in America, but he is in places such as Colombia, due to his intervention in Panama and his contribution in Panama's separation from Colombia.

I do believe that Che Guevara has lots of politically charged opinions attached to his image, from all sides of the political spectrum. Some idolise him and other demonise him, with almost no middle ground. For this reason alone, I think that more unifying leaders, such as Simón Bolívar and, in Cuba's case, José Martí, work better for a game like Civilization.
 
I cannot deny that what I said about Che Guevara has political implications. After all, everyone's opinion about every person or event in history will inevitably be loaded with political and ideological implications. One could also say that your comments on Che Guevara also come loaded with political and ideological implications, and that isn't necessarily a bad or good thing, its an inevitable part of being a human with opinions. What makes it controversial, in terms of inclusion in a game like Civilization, is we are talking about events that took place not so long ago, that require more time to be evaluated and that inspire strong opinions loaded with modern political implications from all sides, that its better for the devs not to delve into that hurricane. Again, that's just my opinion.

Sure, Cuba has made lots of achievements related to healthcare, that's undeniable. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that countless human rights violations have been happening on the island during and after the Cuban Revolution. The USA has also made lots of achievements in various fields, yet that does not excuse their imperialistic, authoritarian and militaristic actions towards nations such as Mexico, Colombia and, of course, even Cuba. The Soviets advanced in space exploration, yet that does not excuse their authoritarian regime. We could go on with this, but it wouldn't take us anywhere, tbh.

Moreover, in places such as Colombia, were we have had to suffer more than 60 years of Communist military insurgency that has brought death, displacement, drug traffic and years of underdevelopment, the image of Che Guevara is not very well regarded, it represents to most Colombians an apology to the armed insurgency that has been one of the causes (together with right-wing paramilitaries) of more than 500,000 deaths from 1960 up to the present. I mention Colombia as it is the place I'm from and I can't talk about Che Guevara's perception here, but claiming that he represents liberation in the wider "developing world" (a rather dated concept) is a huge oversimplification. The concept of "developing world" is not very useful in cultural and anthropological terms to describe a common cultural attitude towards something. I bet Cubans think differently than Colombians, who have lived far different histories, let alone the opinions of Angolans, Vietnamese. There are countless opinions, narratives and perceptions in the so called "developed world", which is very, very far from being a unified cultural entity.
sure, i’m not claiming to be objective, just pointing out that che isn’t the solely bad or controversial figure that some in the thread were making him out to be either—and obviously perceptions will vary wherever you go. like you say, an insurgency existed in colombia for a long time, but the current president is fairly well-liked, fairly left wing, and a former insurgent himself as well. though FARC eventually became a harmful thing in its own right, it arose from dictatorship and military interference (as well as foreign, american interference). like most things, communism and communists are more complicated that being wholly controversial or wholly uncontroversial. generalizations are hard to make with complicated things.

like you say, it’s easy to praise any one civ/person’s accomplishments while ignoring their crimes.
 
Brazil is surely more than soccer, but even now you talk about the ball ;)
just as britain is more than science, arabia more than exploration, italy more than political scheming, etc.

a leader being representative of the civ doesn’t mean what they’re known for is *all* the civ is, imo.

Pele was more than just a player. his relevance to brazil went past the sport, and if for whatever reason he did appear, i don’t think it would imply brazil is just soccer any more than frida kahlo would imply that mexico is just art. neither is true and everyone would recognize that.
 
just as britain is more than science, arabia more than exploration, italy more than political scheming, etc.

a leader being representative of the civ doesn’t mean what they’re known for is *all* the civ is, imo.

Pele was more than just a player. his relevance to brazil went past the sport, and if for whatever reason he did appear, i don’t think it would imply brazil is just soccer any more than frida kahlo would imply that mexico is just art. neither is true and everyone would recognize that.
It doesn't bother me that Brazil is associated with sports elements. Even as someone who doesn't like soccer, I recognize that this sport plays a major role in Brazilian culture. I’d love to see the Maracanã return. That said, I want Brazil to be designed around the commodities trade this time around.
 
It doesn't bother me that Brazil is associated with sports elements. Even as someone who doesn't like soccer, I recognize that this sport plays a major role in Brazilian culture. I’d love to see the Maracanã return. That said, I want Brazil to be designed around the commodities trade this time around.
Assuming that a contemporary 4th age isn't happening, I'm going to assume that Brazil would essentially be the Brazilian Empire of the 19th century, so I'm not sure if any sports attributes would be added.
That being said, the Cristo Redentor would fit the time period of the game, even if was built after the empire, but we have the French Empire associated with the Eiffel Tower, so not really a stretch.

The only issue I can see is the fact that religion doesn't play a factor in the modern age, and tourism isn't a thing at all right now, so I'm not sure of the bonuses it could receive. But it could always change in an expansion with new mechanics that Brazil could come in.
 
sure, i’m not claiming to be objective, just pointing out that che isn’t the solely bad or controversial figure that some in the thread were making him out to be either—and obviously perceptions will vary wherever you go. like you say, an insurgency existed in colombia for a long time, but the current president is fairly well-liked, fairly left wing, and a former insurgent himself as well. though FARC eventually became a harmful thing in its own right, it arose from dictatorship and military interference (as well as foreign, american interference). like most things, communism and communists are more complicated that being wholly controversial or wholly uncontroversial. generalizations are hard to make with complicated things.

like you say, it’s easy to praise any one civ’s accomplishments while ignoring their crimes.
Yeah, it really does depend on the perspective some one is trying to "evaluate" a particular historical figure. (Btw, there's still armed insurgency in Colombia due to everything I mentioned. The guerrillas originated back in the 1960s due to a bipartisan political arrangement between the Liberal and Conservative parties, were the system did not allow any alternative political party to have any chance at the elections. It was similar to the current US political system, were no alternative parties could ever dream of political participation. There was no dictatorship per se when the conflict began, it was more like a rather un-democratic democratic system of two party State, so to speak. Also, the current president of Colombia is not very well liked by most of the population nowadays. He was back when his government started, but not anymore. He was part of the M-19, a far less bloody and minor guerrilla who signed a peace agreement decades ago, so he was more accepted than say, having a president that was formerly part of the FARC or ELN).

However, this forum shouldn't be about current political events, so I'd like to answer @Krajzen's proposal of naming a Native civ for each region of Latin America.

- Native civ from Argentina/Chile/Uruguay area which is not Mapuche: The Charrúa could work, though they might be mechanically similar to the Mapuche. We could also have the Diaguita, who built Pueblo-like towns in the dessert areas of Northern Argentina and Chile, they were also quite skilled with painted ceramics. They also fought against he Inca when they arrived and managed to preserve their culture despite the Incan and Spanish conquests. They could both be in Exploration Era.

- Native civ from Brazil which is not Tupi: The Marajoara could be included as an Antiquity Era civilization from the Brazil region. They would have been contemporary with the Mississippians and were gone when the Portuguese arrived. They built rather large earth mounds and towns at the mouth of the Amazon River. The Ticuna, who are known to be extensive navigators of the Amazon River and its tributaries, could work as another Exploration Era civilization centred on navigable rivers. Still, I think the Tupi are the best choice to represent indigenous Brazil.

- Native civ from Colombia which is not Muisca: We could have the Zenú as an Ancient Era civilization. They also built various earth mounds on the swampy Caribbean areas of Colombia. They managed to built rather complex drainage systems to control flooding and improve irrigation. They had rather large settlements but most were decreasing in size when the Spanish arrived. Their language remains unclassified, but they might have been ancestors of various other indigenous groups in Colombia, such as the Muisca. The Wayuu could work as a Modern Era civilization from the region. Some researchers claim that they might have been descendants of the Taíno, due to their language belonging to the same Arawakan family and being very similar to the Old Taíno language. In that sense, they could represent a Modern Era alternative for Caribbean and Central American indigenous civilizations. They are known for their fast adoption of European horses and weapons, similar to American prairie indigenous groups. They even had trade relationships with the Dutch over in Aruba and Curaçao, from whom they got weapons to fight the colonists of New Granada.

- Native civ from Venezuela: I think the best option for this region would be the Carib peoples as a whole, representing those indigenous groups who speak Cariban languages. They could also work as an Ancient Era predecessor to the Taíno/Arawak, due to the later conquest or settlement of the Caribbean islands by the Arawak from mainland South America. The Carib were famous for their navigation, many Venezuelan cities and towns have Cariban names and tales of their legendary chiefs have become part of Venezuelan folklore. Chief Guaicaipuro is one such character that could even be included as a leader in the game. The Carib would also cover the region of the Guyanas and parts of Colombia. Various Carib groups were amongst the enemies of the Muisca.

- Native civ from Ecuador: The Inca pretty much fill that role, tbh. Most indigenous groups from Ecuador rapidly adopted Quechuan culture and languages after the Inca conquest, which is why you see Ecuadorian natives who aren't Quechua or descendants of the Inca who speak Quechua as their native language. However, the Cara culture, or Caranqui, might work as Ancient Era predecessor to the Inca. They, together with the Kitu people, were the founders of the city of Quito and ruled it as a fairly important Andean city up to the Inca conquest. The Spanish wrote exaggerated accounts of them and referred to them as the Kingdom of Quito. The Cara and Kitu peoples led a strong resistance against Huayna Capac, but were mostly conquered by the Inca when the Spanish Arrived.

- Native civ from the area between Guatemala and Panama (Maya don't count): The Miskito could work as a Modern Era civilization from this area. They inhabited the eastern coast of Nicaragua and managed to avoid Spanish conquest through diplomacy with English and Dutch colonists. They adopted guns and tried to "westernise" by adopting a monarchical form of government (the Mosquito Kingdom) with European noble titles. However, after being disputed by Spain, Colombia and the British, they ended up becoming a British protectorate in the 19th century, but their monarchy kept on existing. They were later incorporated by Nicaragua and Honduras. We could also have the Kuna of Panama, a Chibchan indigenous group related to the Muisca. They are know for having migrated from Central America into South America using the Darien Gap, which is a rather unhospitable region. They could have a bonus related to harsh terrains due to this fact. They might be either Ancient Era predecessor to the Muisca or Modern Era successors to them.
 
Assuming that a contemporary 4th age isn't happening, I'm going to assume that Brazil would essentially be the Brazilian Empire of the 19th century, so I'm not sure if any sports attributes would be added.
That being said, the Cristo Redentor would fit the time period of the game, even if was built after the empire, but we have the French Empire associated with the Eiffel Tower, so not really a stretch.

The only issue I can see is the fact that religion doesn't play a factor in the modern age, and tourism isn't a thing at all right now, so I'm not sure of the bonuses it could receive. But it could always change in an expansion with new mechanics that Brazil could come in.
The idea of building a Christian monument atop Mount Corcovado dates back to the 19th century, during the Brazilian Empire. So, associating Cristo Redentor with the Empire of Brazil works quite well.

As for the bonus, it has never had a religious bonus in Civ, except for a secondary mention of religious tourism in Civ6. I believe that if Cristo returns, it will grant happiness and culture bonuses—especially since happiness now seems to be related to religion.
 
Honestly, looking through the full leaders list, there are exactly *four* leaders who died after 1920 that have been in V, VI or VII : Haile Selassie (died 1975, added with Gods and Kings in 2012, 37 years) ; Wilhelmina (died 1962, added to the game in Rise and Falll in 2018, 56 years), Gandhi (died in 1948, added in vanilla V in 2010 and vanilla VI in 2016 after 62 and 68 years respectively), and John Curtin (died 1945, added with the Australia pack in 2017, 72 years later).

After that, the rest of the twentieth century leaders died in 1919 (Roosvelt, Laurier), 1913 (Tubman) and 1901 (Victoria).

While 50 years may be a hard limit (post-Haile Selassie), I suspect leaders less than around a century dead (97 years Roosvelt, 100 Laurier, 112 Tubman and 115 Victoria) are going to be very, very rare.
 
it just sounds like they don’t want any communists. pol pot, mao and stalin are obviously unacceptable but the others are fine?
But the same poster, himself, with such a strong aversion, suggested Eva Peron, who was little more than a mouthpiece for her Fascist husband.
 
But the same poster, himself, with such a strong aversion, suggested Eva Peron, who was little more than a mouthpiece for her Fascist husband.
yeah it’s hard to call out obviously charged statements without being political in one’s own capacity as a poster, but as apolitical as one can be in this conversation, there’s some obvious hypocrisy going on in the suggestion that marx, lenin and ho chi minh were irredeemable evils but the perpetuators of the dirty wars and the second most disappearances in modern history (behind sinhalese supremacist sri lanka) are acceptable leaders.
 
If they're gonna be adding civs like bulgaria and nepal they should just add peru, I can't even imagine playing an inca game and then having to progress to something like argentina WTH
 
If they're gonna be adding civs like bulgaria and nepal they should just add peru, I can't even imagine playing an inca game and then having to progress to something like argentina WTH

Technically speaking, neither Gran Colombia nor Argentina are terrible directions to take the Incans. Gran Colombia had some pretty significant territorial overlap, and Argentina was a key player in the Peruvian War for Independence.

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.

Yeah I find this hardline perspective weird too. Evil is a spectrum, and while I wouldn't argue that either Marx or Che were the goodest of goods, they definitely were not on the level of fascist/authoritarian evil we see in other communist states; they had, at some point in their careers, ideas and principles which were, for the most part, based.

I mean, we have Napoleon in the game, one of the biggest pre-Hitler menaces to Europe. And, as others have observed in other threads, the Jacobins were/are basically terrorists (a label which, although maybe literally true in some senses, I think could still be misinterpreted as glossing over the fact that not all corrupt institutions are removed peacefully). Mexico's unique units are caudillos. Put another way, one man's liberator can very easily be another man's terrorist.

I agree that Che may be a bit too gritty for Civ (although I would vastly prefer him to Castro). I don't think Marx is anywhere near close to that level.
 
Last edited:
Technically speaking, neither Gran Colombia nor Argentina are terrible directions to take the Incans. Gran Colombia had some pretty significant territorial overlap, and Argentina was a key player in the Peruvian War for Independence.
I agree. At least it's less crazy than their current situation which just is Mexico, I believe.
 
In the same way Colombia was actually flavoured to be Gran Colombia, couldn't Peru or Bolivia be flavoured to include the Peru-Bolivian Confederation? Not that Inca into Colombia is bad, but a full Andean playthrough would be awesome.
 
In the same way Colombia was actually flavoured to be Gran Colombia, couldn't Peru or Bolivia be flavoured to include the Peru-Bolivian Confederation? Not that Inca into Colombia is bad, but a full Andean playthrough would be awesome.
civ ability: no more coastline
 
Back
Top Bottom