Why have the Boers never made it into a Civ game?

[Uncle Paul]

Well Sacagawea was a Shoshone, and is important in American history being a guide for Lewis and Clarke on their expedition. Maori are just a well known people in general throughout the Pacific especially when it comes to New Zealand and Australia.

Lewis and Clarke aren't famous, maybe in the US they are, but not worldwide. Meanwhile, General Smuts was a major political and diplomatic figure of the 20th century (only person to sign peace treaties for both World Wars), and Dr. Barnard was a medical/surgical pioneer whose techniques saved many lives.

The real question I think that needs to be asked is not if the Boers are more influential than these groups of people, but what niche would they fulfill in a civ game?
Scythia fills the role of Classical nomadic steppe civ from Eurasia. The Maori are the Polynesian group represented. Shoshone were a last minute replacement to the Pueblo, but the developers wanted another American tribe.

Coming in as an outsider, not from South Africa, the first thing people think of the Boers are a Dutch colonial government that was located in present-day South Africa. I mean it's true we haven't had a Dutch post-colonial nation yet unlike Anglo (U.S., Australia), French (Canada), Spanish (Gran Colombia), and Portuguese (Brazil), but I don't know if that's enough to warrant inclusion.

The Boers could fill these niches
- Pioneer civ
- Western civ in Africa
- Civ that is good at fighting when it has been weakened (my suggestion that for every Boer unit killed, every enemy unit within a 5-tile radius loses 10% of their HP)
The Boer Republics were not a colonial government. They weren't linked to the Dutch government at all, the Dutch monarch was not the monarch of either republic, etc...

I still stand that is a great distortion that really bugs about Firaxis' take on Canada for some inexplicable reason. Canada very much has a British post-colonial heritage, just as much as Australia and the U.S., less then 20% of Canadians speak French as their mother tongue, 8 out of 10 provinces conduct their Provincial-level Government business and mainstream public schools (as opposed to alternative, but smaller-scale public options, or private schooling), and signage and labelling, are in English. The political apparatus is extremely similar in structure and base institutions and core theory to Australia and the UK, and we use Common Law, not the Civil Code, except for a significant number exception in Civic Law in the Province of Quebec, alone, and our political institutions do not resemble those of France or a former French colony, really, remotely. Our Queen died less than a week ago, too. And, when he was PM, Wilfred Laurier conducted virtually all officially Government business, domestically and abroad, in English, which he had great fluency in. And, we must not forget, that the, by far, biggest Francophone Province, Quebec, is also home to the largest and most politically successful, by an immense margin, SECCESSIONIST political movement who want to SEPARATE from Canada, and feelings of inequity of language and cultural issues in modern Canada. Firaxis' portrayal, and comments as above that seem to casually remark Firaxis' bizarre design choice as actually being fact, is a pet peeve of mine. I apologize for the rant, but, as someone who lives in Western Canada, it always struck me as a bad design choice with no care for what the majority of Canadians would think (when they bend over backwards to get other cultures to agree to their portrayals, even choosing dubious individuals or groups to, "speak for," those cultures, too), and my anger is not at you, but at Firaxis, and the statement of their legacy as not only being in game design, but lumped into conversation as though termed as a fact, becoming so prominent. And, I know Firaxis doesn't care about what I, or over 80% of Canadians, say about their portrayal of Cananda, despite having a sizable consumer base here...

I don't even understand why the Quebeckers want to speak French so badly? With Afrikaans, I understand it, since Boers had independent republics, but the Quebeckers were always a colonized people, first by France, and then by Britain. Why not just give up French the way most German-Americans have given up German?
Also, Canadians are a mostly-White people, and nobody cares much about being insensitive to White people anymore. Think about some of the things that have been said about Boers and Afrikaners in general. A court in South Africa just ruled that it's not hate speech to sing a song called "Kill the Boer"...it's impossible to imagine a court in some other Western country saying it's not hate speech to sing "Kill the Black", "Kill the Muslim", "Kill the Indian", etc...but since Boers are White, it's completely fine to sing songs about killing Boers in their own native homeland, and it's not considered hate speech...in fact, look at what happened to that American pizza restaurant guy who quoted someone else saying the so-called "N-word"...he got fired from his own company for it. Boer Lives Matter, and I'm not going to let some kangaroo court tell me otherwise.
It's part of the reason I don't feel bad about the "excesses" of colonialism...they would have done the same to us if we'd let them have the chance, and the way they treat us when they have power over us just proves it.

 

[Evie]

A mystery indeed why anyone would chose not to speak English when given the chance. It is well known that no culture outside South Africa should have any aspiration other than assimilation and subjection to the Glorious British Realm.

 

[Patine]

2) Finally have a native French speaker in the game considering the other two French leaders aren't. Catherine mixes in Italian while speaking, and Eleanor speaks only Occitan.

Then maybe they should have actually had a French leader for France, instead of showcasing the weird, "one leader for two Civ's," mechanic which was never a favourite idea of mine (nor my least favourite). But I feel failing to have a French leader for France is no excuse to turn Canada into something it's, in truth, not.

 

[Uncle Paul]

A mystery indeed why anyone would chose not to speak English when given the chance. It is well known that no culture outside South Africa should have any aspiration other than assimilation and subjection to the Glorious British Realm.

Was there ever even one Quebecker Republic the way there were multiple Boer Republics?

 

[Patine]

Was there ever even one Quebecker Republic the way there were multiple Boer Republics?

This, and two very close independence referendums in 1975 and 1995, were the closest they ever got.

Republic of Lower Canada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Uncle Paul]

This, and two very close independence referendums in 1975 and 1995, were the closest they ever got.

Republic of Lower Canada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Boers: Two independent, sovereign republics that existed for ~50 years, and a multitude of smaller, less recognized micro-republics
Quebeckers: An unrecognized breakaway state that didn't even last a year

SCOREBOARD
Boers: 1
Quebeckers: 0​

 

[Patine]

Boers: Two independent, sovereign republics that existed for ~50 years, and a multitude of smaller, less recognized micro-republics
Quebeckers: An unrecognized breakaway state that didn't even last a year

SCOREBOARD
Boers: 1
Quebeckers: 0​

This is why Canada should be portrayed as it actually is. But, apparently Canada must artificially and bizarrely make up for Firaxis' lack of a genuinely French leader for France, somehow... *shrug*

 

[Henri Christophe]

The Boer Republics (which lost their freedom in 1902) had nothing to do with Apartheid (which began in 1948).

Okay, maybe the Apartheid don't exactly happens in the Boer Republic, but was the descendent of Boers who made the Apartheid.
And Boers flag is very associated with Apartheid in South Africa nowadays.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Okay, maybe the Apartheid don't exactly happens in the Boer Republic, but was the descendent of Boers who made the Apartheid.
And Boers flag is very associated with Apartheid in South Africa nowadays.

The British descendants bear an equal responsibility, and the Boer Republic flags are not associated with Apartheid.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Boer Republic flags are not associated with Apartheid.

That flag with the boers flag in it is the Apartheid flag. I saw once a mass murderer white supremacist using this flag.

 

[Uncle Paul]

That flag with the boers flag in it is the Apartheid flag. I saw once a mass murderer white supremacist using this flag.

The British flag is also in that flag...that doesn't mean the British flag itself represents apartheid.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The Boers could fill these niches
- Pioneer civ

USA is the most successful pioneer civ, add an immigration bonus and we have a well rounded design for a powerfull blooming civ.

- Western civ in Africa

Africa have limited slots and the role of "foreign" civ in Africa would fit better for either Carthaginians (Phoenicia had Tyre as capital in CIV6) or an Arab mixed (Magrebi or Bedouin) civ. Even Madagascar an their Austronesian element could fit in.
An Euro-African civ is not more "needed" than an Afro-American civ, so lets add Haiti by the way.

- Civ that is good at fighting when it has been weakened (my suggestion that for every Boer unit killed, every enemy unit within a 5-tile radius loses 10% of their HP)

There are lots and lots of civs that had their "resistance againts all odds" or "resistence until the last man" moment. The world is full stories of patriotic last stance. If Firaxis want to sell something like a "Pioneer, fighting, freedom" civ you will get Texas as playable civ just to please american market.
Personally I would actualy prefer Boers over Texas but you know how marketing works

 

[FishFishFish]

A court in South Africa just ruled that it's not hate speech to sing a song called "Kill the Boer".

The reason that was ruled was because the Afriforum failed to meet the basic requirements of litigation.

The judge's ruling boils down to Afriforum being unable to prove their case for hate speech in this particular case. The judge concedes that in a different case and under different circumstances the ruling may be different. As the judge explained, Afriforum's case failed because their witnesses were neither independent (i.e. Ernst Roets) nor qualified (they had a pastor and just some dude from the IRR). In other words, they failed the requirements for being expert witnesses. The EFF brought on a professor in SA language and culture that is not a current EFF member.

 

[Uncle Paul]

USA is the most successful pioneer civ, add an immigration bonus and we have a well rounded design for a powerfull blooming civ.

USA is not primarily a pioneer civ

Africa have limited slots and the role of "foreign" civ in Africa would fit better for either Carthaginians (Phoenicia had Tyre as capital in CIV6) or an Arab mixed (Magrebi or Bedouin) civ. Even Madagascar an their Austronesian element could fit in.

Carthaginians belong in because of their role in Western history (i.e. Rome vs Carthage), but why is some Maghrebi civ more worthy than the Boers? Madagascar could be led by King Julien, and their diplomacy music could be "I like to move it, move it!"

An Euro-African civ is not more "needed" than an Afro-American civ, so lets add Haiti by the way.

Why do you say this? Haiti doesn't deserve to be in civ, but neither to Estonia, Latvia, Andorra, Lichtenstein, San Marino, etc...it's not a race thing.

There are lots and lots of civs that had their "resistance againts all odds" or "resistence until the last man" moment. The world is full stories of patriotic last stance. If Firaxis want to sell something like a "Pioneer, fighting, freedom" civ you will get Texas as playable civ just to please american market.

Americans aren't the world's only people.

Personally I would actualy prefer Boers over Texas but you know how marketing works

As do I.

The reason that was ruled was because the Afriforum failed to meet the basic requirements of litigation.

The judge's ruling boils down to Afriforum being unable to prove their case for hate speech in this particular case. The judge concedes that in a different case and under different circumstances the ruling may be different. As the judge explained, Afriforum's case failed because their witnesses were neither independent (i.e. Ernst Roets) nor qualified (they had a pastor and just some dude from the IRR). In other words, they failed the requirements for being expert witnesses. The EFF brought on a professor in SA language and culture that is not a current EFF member.

Still, if the old flag (which doesn't contain any reference to killing an ethnic group) is considered hate speech, then a song about killing people for being members of the Boerevolk should be considered hate speech.

Like I said, this is why I don't feel guilty about what my ancestors did, or for colonialism in general. They would have done the same to us if we had let them have the chance.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Boers could fill these niches
- Pioneer civ
- Western civ in Africa
- Civ that is good at fighting when it has been weakened (my suggestion that for every Boer unit killed, every enemy unit within a 5-tile radius loses 10% of their HP)
The Boer Republics were not a colonial government. They weren't linked to the Dutch government at all, the Dutch monarch was not the monarch of either republic, etc...

As mentioned above America would make a great pioneer civ, so that's really not a niche that needs to be filled. Also when I meant by a being a "Dutch colonial government" I was mainly applying that they were a colonial power in Africa who happen to be of Dutch ancestry, not necessarily saying they were ruled by the actual Dutch government.

How would you feel about a potential South African civilization with Boer elements implemented into their playstyle, do you view that the same way that others view the way French elements are portrayed within Canada?

If Firaxis want to sell something like a "Pioneer, fighting, freedom" civ you will get Texas as playable civ just to please american market.

You make that sound like a bad thing.

 

[Patine]

do you view that the same way that others view the way French elements are portrayed within Canada?

The French elements are an integral part of Canadian history and overall culture, but the portrayal of Canada as if it was an outright Francophone nation and a legacy of French Colonial legacy, to a major implied dominance over Anglophone elements and the British Colonial - and legal, political, Constitutional, and social - legacies, is just way off base, for some end I'm not fully aware of, nor on board with. There was a certain treaty in Paris (where so many profound international treaties have been signed) way back in 1763, 259 years ago, you know? Plus, France never ruled Western or Northern Canada, or all but one colony on the southern tip of Newfoundland.

 

[Evie]

The Canadian civ has a leader who has quotes in both languages (four in French, his first language, three in English; with an odd number of voiced quote I'd expect the opposite breakdown for one of the english-first-language PM), and neither the Unique Ability, Leader Ability, Unique Unit or Improvements are in any particular way French. The songs are of French origin, but one is the national anthem so represent all Canada equally.

I agree both languages should be represented, and they both are.

The French side (and representation of the French side in the game) gets emphasized a lot *on this forum* (including by me) to combat the common talking point that Canada is just an extension of British civilization (and as such definitely doesn't deserve included), but it's not about denying the British side; it's about emphasizing that Canada is *more than* the British colony people try to pigeonhole it as.

 

[Patine]

and neither the Unique Ability, Leader Ability, Unique Unit or Improvements

Yes, but these are all lazy stereotypes and/or just weird. I don't know anyone who farms tundra in Canada, or anywhere else, with any motive success, and the Khanty and Swedes, at very specific junctures (one battle, both against the Russians, each, as I recall), are the only known ones in history who actually tried riding moose as cavalry.

 

[Uncle Paul]

As mentioned above America would make a great pioneer civ, so that's really not a niche that needs to be filled. Also when I meant by a being a "Dutch colonial government" I was mainly applying that they were a colonial power in Africa who happen to be of Dutch ancestry, not necessarily saying they were ruled by the actual Dutch government.

America isn't really a pioneer civ in most iterations of CIV...have America be a hegemonic superpower, and leave the ragamuffin pioneers to the Boers, who did a better job of it than the United States.

Essentially, I'm more interested in Burghers than I am in burgers.

How would you feel about a potential South African civilization with Boer elements implemented into their playstyle, do you view that the same way that others view the way French elements are portrayed within Canada?

You make that sound like a bad thing.

It would be like Civ 4's Native American civ...conflating a bunch of unrelated cultures because they share a geographical area...it would be better than nothing, though.

The French elements are an integral part of Canadian history and overall culture, but the portrayal of Canada as if it was an outright Francophone nation and a legacy of French Colonial legacy, to a major implied dominance over Anglophone elements and the British Colonial - and legal, political, Constitutional, and social - legacies, is just way off base, for some end I'm not fully aware of, nor on board with. There was a certain treaty in Paris (where so many profound international treaties have been signed) way back in 1763, 259 years ago, you know? Plus, France never ruled Western or Northern Canada, or all but one colony on the southern tip of Newfoundland.

Also, the French language is very confusing and difficult to understand...at has a lot of unnecessary stuff, whereas Afrikaans got rid of the unnecessary stuff.

Look at the quote in my signature: "Ons sal lewe, ons sal sterwe; ons vir jou, Suid-Afrika!". Literally, one-to-one, "us shall live, us shall die, us for you, South Africa!". Us and we are the same word (ons) in Afrikaans, because there's no valid reason to have two words for it. Afrikaans also does away with the pointless grammatical gender system...except for a small number of pronouns.

Meanwhile, half of the letters in any given French word are not even pronounced, and are just there for no apparent reason. Francophones also slur their speech...all the words run together, and are not pronounced with good diction...it's impossible to follow anything they are saying. For example, look at the city names "Marseilles", "Bordeaux", "Dunkerque" (Duinkerken, or Dunkirk to Anglophones, which makes a lot more sense, seeing as it cuts out the superfluous "ue" at the end)...

The Canadian civ has a leader who has quotes in both languages (four in French, his first language, three in English; with an odd number of voiced quote I'd expect the opposite breakdown for one of the english-first-language PM), and neither the Unique Ability, Leader Ability, Unique Unit or Improvements are in any particular way French. The songs are of French origin, but one is the national anthem so represent all Canada equally.

I agree both languages should be represented, and they both are.

The French side (and representation of the French side in the game) gets emphasized a lot *on this forum* (including by me) to combat the common talking point that Canada is just an extension of British civilization (and as such definitely doesn't deserve included), but it's not about denying the British side; it's about emphasizing that Canada is *more than* the British colony people try to pigeonhole it as.

But Canada is fundamentally a Britain in North America, just like Australia and New Zealand are fundamentally Britains in the Pacific Ocean, and Rhodesia was fundamentally a Britain in South-Central Africa. The US is different, because of its War of Independence and history, and South Africa and Ireland, the most different of all of the Old Dominions (they both left the Commonwealth in the mid-20th century, South Africa rejoined, but didn't take the Queen back as head of state), since they both had a longstanding preexisting culture there, and a history of responsible self-rule (medieval Irish kingdoms and the Boer Republics, respectively).

 

[Henri Christophe]

Why do you say this? Haiti doesn't deserve to be in civ, but neither to Estonia, Latvia, Andorra, Lichtenstein, San Marino, etc...it's not a race thing.

We already discuss that in the other thread. But Haiti is way better to be a civ then the Boers.
At least the Haiti still a country today, where is the Boers?