The Lost Civilization

[Arachnofiend]

It sounds like the Pueblo had an issue with being included period and Firaxis is generally good at not being dicks so they obliged. That's all there is to it.

 

[Pouakai]

I wonder if they would have still scrapped the Pueblo if this arose during IV, when languages weren't a problem?

 

[Gucumatz]

Did you watch the video? It sounded like it was direct affront at Pope being used - Not the Pueblo itself. There are several notable Caciques [With no religious connotations at all] that could replace Pope as a Pueblo leader (With the most notable being Zuni, Ytsa, and Hopi Caciques)

 

[Snoopaloop]

At what time exactly of the video do they talk about the Pueblo? I want to listen myself for any hints in their voices

The video runs terribly for me, so finding the time has been a pain so far.

EDIT:
Thank you Louis

 

[Louis XXIV]

I have it at 5:55:45 or so in the video. For clarity, this is the link I'm relying on when saying "the video."

 

[AriochIV]

It occurs to me that when Ed says "leader", I think he means "civilization"; in his narration of the demo, he refers to both Poland and Brazil as "leaders," and not as nations or civilizations. So when he says "we had to cut a leader," I think it's likely that he means "we had to cut a civilization."

 

[JanghanHong]

I'm sort of confused, I didn't know who he was so I looked him up, what did he really do anyway? It seems like the Pueblo realized after his rebellion that they had more to fear from other native american raiders and tribes than the Spanish? So the Pueblo eventually went under the Spanish rule and the Spanish wisely decided to change their ways, but Pope died thinking that the Christian God was "dead". Is there more to the guy?

 

[Inhalaattori]

It's the tribe's call if they don't want to be represented. The game favors a European concept of what makes a people: apparently all true nations start as city-states and implement a formal trading economy while transforming the land for their use.

Moreover, I can certainly understand how it might be deemed as offensive to be included in the game; I imagine if they ever tried making an Aboriginal (Australian) civilization, they'd hit the same roadblocks, and rightly so, for trying to fit that culture(s) into a very European conception of 'civilization'; a conception that was used as legitimization for their dispossession.

European concept? That is the way all great civilizations started in the Middle East, Egypt, India, China, Mexico, Peru etc. That has nothing to do with European.

And why on earth we should have "civilizations" that did not have cities, writing, technology or anythings the game is all about. Doesnt make any sense.

 

[Bakspatel]

I have it at 5:55:45 or so in the video. For clarity, this is the link I'm relying on when saying "the video."

From how I understand it is that they won't be adding the civ because they were too offended from one of their leaders being in a video game, being spiritual about people who have passed away. I can't image that they would accept another leader to be added due to similar issues, even if that person was less influential in their history.

 

[Ikael]

I am really tited of the utterly foolish and downrigh opressive notion that somehow feelings of offense must take precedent over... well, over everything, but specially over freedom of expression and consequently, over creative freedom, as this is the case.

Now try to imagine this situation, but applied to a big, modern civ instead, such as, say, the United States, rather than the Pueblo nation. Imagine that I am making a movie about the Vietnam war that paints the US in a very, very negative light and, consequently, many Americans would feel offended. Would that be reason enough to stop such a movie from being made? Of course not. Then why do we apply a different criteria when dealing with other civs? Hell, in this case, the inclussion of the Pueblo, far from being an insult, it is a homage.

Sorry, but to think that othe people must self censore theirselves so they appease your feelings is not demanding others to be sensible, but rather you giving your own feelings far too much importance than they really have. It's narcissism, not sensibility. The Pueblo nation ought to be treated like any other Civ, end of the story.

European concept? That is the was all great civilizations started in the Middle East, Egypt, India, China, Mexico, Peru etc. That has nothing to do with European.

And why on earth we should have "civilizations" that did not have cities, writing, technology or anythings the game is all about. Doesnt make any sense.

It strikes me like a good decission for increasing its appeal towards the American market. Also, cultural relativism, but that's a debate for another day, me thinks.

 

[PhilBowles]

There are some proud (I don't want to say nationalists, but its the closest word I can think of to describe it) ancestors of these people that makes it no surprise of the Council's decision. As I understand it, "Anasazi" isn't even a proper Navajo word. Rather its a conglomeration of Navajo terms made up by Anglo anthropologists. In short, a made up name. It could be worse, the "Pima" who were ancestral neighbors [And could be grouped together as a Pueblo people] got their name when European descendants thought that a Oodham was responding to "What people are you". In reality the Oodham native couldn't understand the strangers and replied with the word "what" in his language and from then on in American textbooks/anthropology their people have been called "The What"

I often wonder how many of these supposed 'lost in translation' issues are urban myths. It's commonly taught that the word 'kangaroo' came about because an English explorer asked one of the local people "What do you call that animal", and the native's response was "I don't understand the question", and so "kangaroo" means "I don't understand". However, I never heard this corroborated in Australia itself.

 

[PhilBowles]

It occurs to me that when Ed says "leader", I think he means "civilization"; in his narration of the demo, he refers to both Poland and Brazil as "leaders," and not as nations or civilizations. So when he says "we had to cut a leader," I think it's likely that he means "we had to cut a civilization."

Everyone seems to miss that 'civilization' and 'leader' have been treated as synonyms by Firaxis throughout Civ V to date, and that includes the announcement of BNW and its "nine new leaders". It seems the developers hit on leaders they want more than civs they want (they wanted Attila, so we got the Huns, they wanted Gustavus so we got Sweden) where civs new to the series are concerned.

And why on earth we should have "civilizations" that did not have cities, writing, technology or anythings the game is all about. Doesnt make any sense.

This is also something people miss. We are constrained by the simple fact that this is an English-language game and "civilization" is an English word. By definition we're using a European concept; it's ingrained in the language that societies can be divided into "civilisations" (derived from "civic", itself indicating a bureaucratic structure) and "other". A civilisation is defined by key shared traits that include urbanisation, hierarchy, an organised central state and at minimum the technologies needed to support those. This has nothing to do with neo-colonialism, it's merely what a civilisation is. Archaeologists and anthropologists routinely describe societies with different cultural structures as "cultures" rather than as "civilisations".

I'm sort of confused, I didn't know who he was so I looked him up, what did he really do anyway? It seems like the Pueblo realized after his rebellion that they had more to fear from other native american raiders and tribes than the Spanish? So the Pueblo eventually went under the Spanish rule and the Spanish wisely decided to change their ways, but Pope died thinking that the Christian God was "dead". Is there more to the guy?

I don't know anything about Pope specifically, but if he was a charismatic leader of a rebellion it's likely that that would be enough, regardless of what happened next or regardless of his personal irrationalities. And in particular he was active at a time when cherished traditions were threatened and he made an effort to uphold them; he may be seen heroically now largely because he failed, because there's a certain mythic nostalgia associated with the "old ways" that wouldn't be there if those ways were still around today.

I don't suggest that Pope as a figure was analogous to either of the following examples (neither of whom was very pleasant or worthy of being recognised), but they illustrate the psychology involved. There's an Australian folk hero called Ned Kelly whose only apparent achievement was getting shot for murdering people, but he's ingrained in the national imagination as a heroic rebel against imposed colonial authority. A lot of people dissatisfied with capitalism have idolised the particularly odious figure Ernesto Guevara in much the same way - looked at objectively, he accomplished next to nothing, sparking a whole lot of ineffective rebellions which got a lot of poor and dissatisfied people killed (many by Guevara personally), and his main position of power (in Cuba) involved establishing a brutal system of gulags for political dissidents. But he's a symbol of someone seen as "making a stand", possibly the more glorious for its complete lack of success, both among dissatisfied Westerners and also among Latin Americans who have an increasing sense that their own identity and traditions are under threat from neocolonial powers.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

I'm as disappointed as the next person over the Pueblo leader not being in the game - and it looked like being a great idea for a civ with a very different UA. However, we have to remember that it is very easy to look at their decision from a standpoint of a society where computers and gaming is part of our every day life and wonder why they wouldn't want to be included. These guys have different principles and to them, the world being made more aware of what Pope did isn't as important as maintaining their cultural integrity.

It makes me wonder, though, how soon it would be before a fan mod was made of Pope and the Pueblo.

On a completely different note, if they're not including the Pueblo as part of a wider North American cultural group, it'd be great to see the Sioux make a return and the Powhattan would be another good option IMHO. Pocahontas is well known to us and, as there's been no female leaders announced yet in this expansion, would be (in my opinion) a brilliant addition.

 

[Evie94]

i imagine they scrapped the whole civ. pity, it sounded like an interesting concept, if a little to close to the Incas for my liking. but fair dues to firaxis from skirting controversy. IW/EA literally go out of their way to make bad press for COD/BF so nice to see firaxis arent being difficult that way

that said, i think the pueblo made a howler on this one. being included in one of the biggest PC game franchises of all time would dramatically increase worldwide knowledge of them. as a european with a massive interest in history, i was aware of their existence but had no concrete facts about them. pity

 

[SomethingCronic]

I am really tited of the utterly foolish and downrigh opressive notion that somehow feelings of offense must take precedent over... well, over everything, but specially over freedom of expression and consequently, over creative freedom, as this is the case.

Now try to imagine this situation, but applied to a big, modern civ instead, such as, say, the United States, rather than the Pueblo nation. Imagine that I am making a movie about the Vietnam war that paints the US in a very, very negative light and, consequently, many Americans would feel offended. Would that be reason enough to stop such a movie from being made? Of course not. Then why do we apply a different criteria when dealing with other civs? Hell, in this case, the inclussion of the Pueblo, far from being an insult, it is a homage.

Sorry, but to think that othe people must self censore theirselves so they appease your feelings is not demanding others to be sensible, but rather you giving your own feelings far too much importance than they really have. It's narcissism, not sensibility. The Pueblo nation ought to be treated like any other Civ, end of the story.



It strikes me like a good decission for increasing its appeal towards the American market. Also, cultural relativism, but that's a debate for another day, me thinks.

There is a difference between being able to do something, and choosing to do it. If firaxis wanted to and could get someone to voice act the part then they could. It would have deeply offended quite possibly a large number of people who have a culture and tradition that I personally can't begin to understand and who are (probably quite rightly) concerned over a US games company trivialising their not-so-distant history and culture.

Firaxis's argument would be that it would be done tastefully and with education and awareness would come of it - but I don't blame many of these groups for erring on the side of caution. I guess when they said sometimes you can wipe out other people's and your civ can be wiped out all over again by the spainish probably doesn't help either.

I'm quite happy for them not to be in the game and us finding a new and interesting civ in its place, than have a large amount of people offended. It's not like these people have been on the top 5 civs-we-must-have or anything.

 

[blackcatatonic]

It sounds like they made the right call, and I would be very surprised if they hadn't decided to scrap the Civ altogether. Nice one, Firaxis.

 

[PhilBowles]

I am really tited of the utterly foolish and downrigh opressive notion that somehow feelings of offense must take precedent over... well, over everything, but specially over freedom of expression and consequently, over creative freedom, as this is the case.

Now try to imagine this situation, but applied to a big, modern civ instead, such as, say, the United States, rather than the Pueblo nation. Imagine that I am making a movie about the Vietnam war that paints the US in a very, very negative light and, consequently, many Americans would feel offended. Would that be reason enough to stop such a movie from being made? Of course not.

Yet this is exactly what happened, if only through self-censorship. Vietnam war movies were current some years after the war ended (which is why they all came out in the 1980s); even Black Hawk Down waited for a few years after American involvement in Somalia ended to fear of offending veterans. A beloved British sitcom, Dad's Army, came close to being canned after an internal screening because of concerns that it would be considered offensive to WWII veterans (it wasn't); even more than 70 years after the event Blackadder Goes Forth raised similar concerns among executives regarding WWI (and again was well-received regardless).

As for cases of games doing the same, I've read that Civ already makes allowances to avoid offending the Chinese. Following Mao's fall from grace in Chinese political thinking, he was replaced by a different leader in Civ IV in Chinese versions, and removed from Civ V altogether (where replacing leader graphics for different national releases wouldn't be feasible). I read recently that Lhasa is not a CS name in the Chinese version of the game (I don't know whether they've gone so far as to make it a Chinese city).

Total War developers Creative Assembly have said several times that they will never include the Japanese invasion of Korea as part of their Shogun games because it is still a sensitive issue in Korea (yet Civ V apparently got away with it despite aiming at the Korean market, and an achievement "Tae-kwon-D'oh! - Lose the scenario as Korea" is undoubtedly more trivialising than anything a TW game would do).

 

[anandus]

It's a shame that the Pueblo didn't make it into the game, those cave dwellings sounds really interesting!
Oh, well, nine other civs to enjoy. Although more is always better

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Yet this is exactly what happened, if only through self-censorship. Vietnam war movies were current some years after the war ended (which is why they all came out in the 1980s); even Black Hawk Down waited for a few years after American involvement in Somalia ended to fear of offending veterans. A beloved British sitcom, Dad's Army, came close to being canned after an internal screening because of concerns that it would be considered offensive to WWII veterans (it wasn't); even more than 70 years after the event Blackadder Goes Forth raised similar concerns among executives regarding WWI (and again was well-received regardless).

As for cases of games doing the same, I've read that Civ already makes allowances to avoid offending the Chinese. Following Mao's fall from grace in Chinese political thinking, he was replaced by a different leader in Civ IV in Chinese versions, and removed from Civ V altogether (where replacing leader graphics for different national releases wouldn't be feasible). I read recently that Lhasa is not a CS name in the Chinese version of the game (I don't know whether they've gone so far as to make it a Chinese city).

Total War developers Creative Assembly have said several times that they will never include the Japanese invasion of Korea as part of their Shogun games because it is still a sensitive issue in Korea.

There is a difference between the manufactured offence you're talking about with dad's army and black hawk down and the offence to the Pueblo people.

Rather than being about representations, the issue for the Pueblo people was that their spiritual beliefs determine that it would be wrong for Pope to be represented, regardless of how. It seems to be more similar to how Mohammed is not supposed to be represented.

 

[HarvesterofSorr]

Does anyone know whether the inclusion of Hallie Selassie was either controversial among Rastafarians or cleared with their religious leaders?

As far as I know Selassie had nothing to do personally with the beginnings of Rastafarianism. They adopted him into their beliefs independent of him. It is the Ethiopians who they should have got permission from.

BTW: The Iroquois have a good case for being offended that their leader is Hiawatha, a fictional character invented by Longfellow. Though I believe Longfellow meant well toward the Native Americans by 19th century standards. The Iroquois would be right to insist that one of their actual leaders who impacted their history would be a better choice than a Anglo-cized invention.