Zapotecs, Guaranis & Botswana

[awesome]

Nigeria's probably more likely than Botswana, but the Hausa/Yoruba/whatever would probably end up being a gunpowder unit, though.

 

[Patine]

Nigeria's probably more likely than Botswana, but the Hausa/Yoruba/whatever would probably end up being a gunpowder unit, though.

Hausa, Yoruba, and Igibo aren't proposed "units," they're the three biggest ethnicities and languages of Nigeria. The problem with Nigeria, and MOST Subsaharan African countries (of which, I admit, Botswana is a notable exception, as are Lesotho, Swaziland, Rwanda, Burundi, and Ethiopia, but not any others, really) is that their existences as the "nations" with anything remotely close to the borders, identities, and names we see today, are all STRICTLY colonial constructs, and have ABSOLUTELY no previous history as nations with anymore close to those identities, AT ALL, and almost all of them have been proving, again and again, since decolonization, to be failed social and political experiments.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Mexico could just as easily end up being called republic of the Anahuac, modern Mexico does have roots in European, mesoamerican, and aridoamerican cultures. all molded into the very distinct American identity that ended up causing the mexican independence, the fact that the country is named after the Mexica has more to do with Iturbides desire to anquor the newly formed empire to a distinctivly American ideal, but the identity that would become Mexico was already in place during Colony.

I must have missed that time I went to study at the Calmecac, afternoons of worshiping Huitzilopochtli, celebrating the new fire ceremony, all while planning how to sacrifice the white men /s. I'm a massive fan of mesoamerican history and mythology, It rubs me the wrong way everytime people try to equate Mexico to the Aztecs, and because of the Illustrations I do, I run into Indigenist that honestly think we should be doing what I just pointed out sacrastically.

As Patine so kindly noted, there's not a continuum between Tlatoanis and Presidents, if that's somehow what you are imagining.

There is no political or ethnic continuum between Chandragupta and Ghandhi.

I do not find this argument compelling and really see this kind of "well that's not *my* country, those aren't *my* people" as vaguely fascist and racist. It's really a no true Scotsman fallacy and it's very disheartening to see an attitude of not accepting anything than the most pedantic representation, particularly in a game which can only do so much justice to any particular culture. This sort of attitude may prevent Mexico from ever officially appearing in a civ game, because I assure you there is no way any Civilization game will exist without some form of Aztec civ.

The fact is that colonialism and imperialism is ingrained into the history of nearly every culture on the planet. Every modern culture is a melting pot. It is delusionally exceptionalist to put Mexico on a pedestal above India as somehow needing "better" colonial representation. Somehow it is obviously brilliant to connect India to the Mauryan empire, and yet everyone is up in arms about potential confusion that Mexico is *gasp* not the same as the Aztecs? It would be one of the least likely dual leaders to be susceptible to that confusion, unlike some nonsense like say the Huns and Hungary or Romania and the Romania, both of which have the same geographic justification with none of the cultural or etymological commonality or even a loose justification for sharing a civ.

I don't buy it. If we are only getting a finite number of X civs, the devs need to maximize representation wherever they can find it. And imo if we have the HRE as Germany, Sumeria as an Akkadian blob. If we somehow have Catherine de Medici leading France and seem incredibly likely to get Olga as a Russian leader. If we have Silla representing Korea and Kristina leading Sweden...I don't care about fans nitpicking all the fun and creative cultural connections and I suspect Firaxis doesn't either.

If we get a separate Mexico civ in VI, it will be because the devs didn't care about creative consistency enough to retrofit it to the Aztecs, but still wanted the make the cash grab. It will have practically nothing to do with your opinions on the matter, indeed the same whinging that surrounds every civ that isn't displayed as a conventional, boring paragon of cultural purity and imperial prowess. It is far too late in VI's development cycle to be levelling this sort of complaint at the creative decision to play up the fun side of history.

 

[awesome]

Hausa, Yoruba, and Igibo aren't proposed "units," they're the three biggest ethnicities and languages of Nigeria. The problem with Nigeria, and MOST Subsaharan African countries (of which, I admit, Botswana is a notable exception, as are Lesotho, Swaziland, Rwanda, Burundi, and Ethiopia, but not any others, really) is that their existences as the "nations" with anything remotely close to the borders, identities, and names we see today, are all STRICTLY colonial constructs, and have ABSOLUTELY no previous history as nations with anymore close to those identities, AT ALL, and almost all of them have been proving, again and again, since decolonization, to be failed social and political experiments.

Right, everybody knows all of this. They'd still probably just go with "Hausa Warrior" or something like that for the unit's name, though they didnt even bother adding the "warrior" part for Georgia's unit.
As far as the country not being a country before colonization, the same can be said for plenty of civilizations in the game, and I'm not just talking about European colonies, since the reason why the Ottomans aren't just called "Turks" is because they also came from somewhere other than where they had their major empire.

 

[Patine]

I do not find this argument compelling and really see this kind of "well that's not *my* country, those aren't *my* people" as vaguely fascist and racist. It's really a no true Scotsman fallacy and it's very disheartening to see an attitude of not accepting anything than the most pedantic representation, particularly in a game which can only do so much justice to any particular culture. This sort of attitude may prevent Mexico from ever officially appearing in a civ game, because I assure you there is no way any Civilization game will exist without some form of Aztec civ.

When you give up, or become frustrated. with continuing rational argument, or quite possibly run out of any material to back things up rationally and academically, I've noticed you have (at least twice to me now - I haven't followed you diligently enough to see who else you've done this to), resort to personal insults based on absolutely no knowledge or basis of any backing, about me. You recently called me "drunk" on another thread, and now you're calling me a "Fascist and racist." There is no evidence or truth to either, nor are either at all true - both just smack of lashing out with unfounded personal insults when rational dialogue (which I have stuck to the whole time with you) seems to become frustrating or tedious for you, or so it would seem.

There is no political or ethnic continuum between Chandragupta and Ghandhi.

The fact is that colonialism and imperialism is ingrained into the history of nearly every culture on the planet. Every modern culture is a melting pot. It is delusionally exceptionalist to put Mexico on a pedestal above India as somehow needing "better" colonial representation. Somehow it is obviously brilliant to connect India to the Mauryan empire, and yet everyone is up in arms about potential confusion that Mexico is *gasp* not the same as the Aztecs? It would be one of the least likely dual leaders to be susceptible to that confusion, unlike some nonsense like say the Huns and Hungary or Romania and the Romania, both of which have the same geographic justification with none of the cultural or etymological commonality or even a loose justification for sharing a civ.

I don't buy it. If we are only getting a finite number of X civs, the devs need to maximize representation wherever they can find it. And imo if we have the HRE as Germany, Sumeria as an Akkadian blob. If we somehow have Catherine de Medici leading France and seem incredibly likely to get Olga as a Russian leader. If we have Silla representing Korea and Kristina leading Sweden...I don't care about fans nitpicking all the fun and creative cultural connections and I suspect Firaxis doesn't either.

If we get a separate Mexico civ in VI, it will be because the devs didn't care about creative consistency enough to retrofit it to the Aztecs, but still wanted the make the cash grab. It will have practically nothing to do with your opinions on the matter, indeed the same whinging that surrounds every civ that isn't displayed as a conventional, boring paragon of cultural purity and imperial prowess. It is far too late in VI's development cycle to be levelling this sort of complaint at the creative decision to play up the fun side of history.

The only things I actually said here, of all these things you've accused me, essentially of saying, is that Mexico is NOT direct continuity of the Aztecs, and the HRE IS a direct continuity with Germany - and both I explained in great detail and with rational points-of-view, not PURELY opinions or feelings alone, my reasons for believing such, in several posts, above, in this thread. I've made NO OTHER claim you've attributed to me, above. Although, from a historical point-of-view, the Kingdom of Silla is the best representative of Late-Antiquity, Early-Medieval Korea (a much better example of such than Gogoryeo or the Ban Confederacy, frankly). But, everything else here, in their entirety, is putting words in my mouth I've never said here.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Frederick Barbarossa had "King of Germany," as one of his many titles, and the Holy Roman Empire is viewed by most historians as a direct spiritual predecessor of modern Germany - the First Reich, as opposed to the Second Reich created by Bismarck and Wilhelm I, the ambiguous usage of the word "Reich" during the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich of You-Know-Who, He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, the Dark Lord, and post-Reich Germany - but the HRE is seen as an earlier predecessor of Germany, nonetheless. Juarez was not a pre-Colombian Priest-King of a society of a small number of city-states built around a polytheist religion and single ethnicity in one Mexican State - he was a Roman Catholic, 19th Century President and national hero of all of Mexico - and modern Mexico is not seen as a successor in continuity to any SINGLE ethnic origin within - but Mexicans see themselves as syncretic and synergetic people.

The Germanic tribes believe in Odin and Thor. The second Reich was protestant. Religion isn't a conclusive reference to say when one civilization become another. Actually don't have anything to help us to say when one nation becomes another, just one thing matters, what is teached and what the population believe is true, don't matter what is said.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Nigeria's probably more likely than Botswana, but the Hausa/Yoruba/whatever would probably end up being a gunpowder unit, though.

I'm totally against one Nigeria Civilization, for me is way better to make a Yoruba, Hauça and Igbó civilizations separately.

By the way, this game needs AT LEAS ONE Slavery civilization of West Africa, this game totally ignores this page of human history.

 

[Patine]

The Germanic tribes believe in Odin and Thor. The second Reich was protestant. Religion isn't a conclusive reference to say when one civilization become another. Actually don't have anything to help us to say when one nation becomes another, just one thing matters, what is teached and what the population believe is true, don't matter what is said.

Sorry, but the Teutonic Germanic Polytheist Religion was NEVER practiced (legally, or in significant numbers, at least) in the Holy Roman Empire, of which Frederick Barbarossa was a signature leader. It was originally a Catholic polity, and most of it's earliest Emperors were personally crowned (and had their choice meddled in) by the Pope. Lutheranism and Calvinism also got entrenched there during the 16th-19th Centuries leading to endless religious wars. These three denominations of Christianity were all represented in large numbers in the Second Reich - they weren't ALL Protestant, especially in States like Bavaria or Wurttenberg, which were VERY strongly Catholic. Just to straighten the record on that blatant error there.

 

[ehecatzin]

There is no political or ethnic continuum between Chandragupta and Ghandhi.

I do not find this argument compelling and really see this kind of "well that's not *my* country, those aren't *my* people" as vaguely fascist and racist. It's really a no true Scotsman fallacy and it's very disheartening to see an attitude of not accepting anything than the most pedantic representation, particularly in a game which can only do so much justice to any particular culture. This sort of attitude may prevent Mexico from ever officially appearing in a civ game, because I assure you there is no way any Civilization game will exist without some form of Aztec civ.

The fact is that colonialism and imperialism is ingrained into the history of nearly every culture on the planet. Every modern culture is a melting pot. It is delusionally exceptionalist to put Mexico on a pedestal above India as somehow needing "better" colonial representation. Somehow it is obviously brilliant to connect India to the Mauryan empire, and yet everyone is up in arms about potential confusion that Mexico is *gasp* not the same as the Aztecs? It would be one of the least likely dual leaders to be susceptible to that confusion, unlike some nonsense like say the Huns and Hungary or Romania and the Romania, both of which have the same geographic justification with none of the cultural or etymological commonality or even a loose justification for sharing a civ.

I don't buy it. If we are only getting a finite number of X civs, the devs need to maximize representation wherever they can find it. And imo if we have the HRE as Germany, Sumeria as an Akkadian blob. If we somehow have Catherine de Medici leading France and seem incredibly likely to get Olga as a Russian leader. If we have Silla representing Korea and Kristina leading Sweden...I don't care about fans nitpicking all the fun and creative cultural connections and I suspect Firaxis doesn't either.

If we get a separate Mexico civ in VI, it will be because the devs didn't care about creative consistency enough to retrofit it to the Aztecs, but still wanted the make the cash grab. It will have practically nothing to do with your opinions on the matter, indeed the same whinging that surrounds every civ that isn't displayed as a conventional, boring paragon of cultural purity and imperial prowess. It is far too late in VI's development cycle to be levelling this sort of complaint at the creative decision to play up the fun side of history.

So "everyone that doesn't agree with me is a Nazi" is your retort? Not to mention you have no authority to assure X civ can or can't be in the game because of forum opinions. No point in continuing a discussion from your high horse of moral judging. Good night.

 

[ehecatzin]

Yes, I understand your point, Benito born after the Spanish Conquest of Zapotecs, so don't make sense he becomes Zapotec leader. But I want to argue the Germany leader Barbarrosa died 674 years before Germany be founded, why that makes sense and one Benito Zapotec don't?

He not just born in Oaxaca, he was a full blood Zapotec and was governor of Oaxaca before becoming Mexican president, and Oaxaca is the state heir of Oaxaca civilization.

I don't know that much about Zapotec civilization, but my idea is all other unique features os Zapotec civ is from the period of 700 BC - 1563 AD, just his leader (and leader agenda) from modern ages.

I owe you at least a good reply, sorry for derailing the topic. As you probably noticed, looking for specific details on many mesoamerican civilizations is a bit of detective work, it's bafling how we don't know many things about them, like for example, what Teotihuacan was actually called, or it's actual ethnic background (most likely hypothesis is they were part of the Otomi family). Same thing is going on with the Zapotecs, there's too many gaps when it comes to classical Zapotec details that would be important for a civ leader. Oddly enough the bits of light when it comes to this are thanks to other civilizations dealing with them, peacefully and militarily, like the Mixtecs (another good civ candidate) and the Aztecs, thanks to their history being recorded after the conques,t and also thanks to Mixtec codexs surviving, and later by the Spanish chronicles, due to this, yeah probably Cosijoeza is the best shot at a classical Zapotec leader for civ I would venture.

Now about Benito, the thing with Oaxaca being the heartland of the Zapotecs is that we are talking about Oaxaca after 300 years of colonization, if you want to see an example of a civilization that always had pokets of resistance well into the XIX century you can look at the Mayans, for them having someone like Canek as a modern leader could make more sense as despite the syncretic conversion to catholicism he was part of the Casta wars, started on New Spain continued all the way past both the Mexican independence, the Yucatan independence and ended until the Porfiriato. Now back to Benito, while yes, Benito was full blooded Zapotec,It's probably the less Zapotec...Zapotec culturally, Juarez represented a full break with any remaining institution from colonial times, and that included much of indigenous identity and culture, as well as the catholic church. He famously congratulated Huerta (future mexican dictator during the revolution) when he was a young soldier because the country expected much of "Indians" that educated themselves just like him. educated in this context being a full break from said traditions and culture, the way forward for Juarez was full non negotiated westernization.

(little side note Victoriano Huerta himself was of Wixarika (huichol) origin, and hyphothetical Wixarika civ would pose the same Juarez situation)

As for the Germany situation, it's a problem with civilization I give you that, and it's mostly a matter pf perception, and sometimes bad design , as in the India situation, we keep getting modern India blobed with ancient India because Firaxis has to have its nuke jokes. Had they choosen another leader for Germany they'd be in a better position now to just add Charlemagne and have him represent the HRE in the same way Eleonor represents the Angevin Empire. Now the fact that the've made mistakes doesn't mean they should keep on repeating them, the depiction of Brazil, Australia and Canada is completely post colonial,no blobbing there Barbarossa style, we even got the Maori instead of Polynesia. So I would argue that if a Zapotec civ were to come around, Benito wouldnt' be the ideal, a classical ruler, even with creative reimaginings would be prefered. in the same vein a Mexico civ would be best served by having an actual Mexican president as its leader as opposed to a mesoamerican Tlatoani.