I wonder why Americans....

[Draco aka Se7eN]

I say they Put EVERY CIVILIZATION, COUNTRY, NATION, OR RACE IN THE GAME ! ! !

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by joseph1944


Try 376 year + a few. The Aztec and Inca were around for 220 to 240 years each.

Those are South American Indians... I was not talking about them. They accomplished all the things necessary for a civilization. The North Indians were more like polite, nice Mongols (IE nomads; although some built cities; Anasazi, Mound Builders) who had no cities to conquer.

The Iroquois was, they had Six tribes in the League.

True, but they only formed after Europeans came, and they did not exist long at all.

The White Man did not care about their clout. The Indians had two choice. Move away or stay and died. The White Man was going to take their land either way.

Precisely why they don't need to be in the game.

Originally posted by DarkCloud


Those are South American Indians... I was not talking about them. They accomplished all the things necessary for a civilization. The North Indians were more like polite, nice Mongols (IE nomads; although some built cities; Anasazi, Mound Builders) who had no cities to conquer.

The Iroq. lived in what is now upper New York State. They built long houses with wood. They even frame their houses before coving it with hids.

True, but they only formed after Europeans came, and they did not exist long at all.

Their Civ. started before 1400 AD and survived until 1779 when Gen George Washington order them destroyed.

Precisely why they don't need to be in the game.

I belived other wise.

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
I say they Put EVERY CIVILIZATION, COUNTRY, NATION, OR RACE IN THE GAME ! ! !

Yes, Yes, Yes This post I can live with. Draco Very, Very Good.

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Look lets face it, People are stupid, a person is smart, People are stupid, its that simple. Now lets all lean back in are chairs or whatever and think about how much fun Civ 3 will be : Drool : Gargle : Cough : Clears throat : ahhh : Closes eyes and falls asleep right there in his chair continuing to drool.....................

















Gargle (COUGH ) a hem

I think Firaxis knows that it cant please everyone, i think the wises thing they can do is to make it easy or at least possible for those of us who care to be able to edit and creat our own civs.

HORAY ! !

Now if you will excuse me i will snooze off into slumberland where i can attack engineers with impi in the 21st century and laugh till im insane.

[Waku]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
Spain was just an imperialist country that picked on the Native Americans who never had a chance.

At least they had the chance of survive us. Your puritanisn didn't give them that chance. That's why you have to go to Mexico to look for indians to make your cowboys movies.

[Waku]

double post

[Draco aka Se7eN]

At least they had the chance of survive us. Your puritanisn didn't give them that chance.

Ok im sorry but this is Hilarious

CHANCE ! ! ! HA

I think a gentlemen by the name of Cortez would disagree with you. I do believe that was his name.

Thanks to this joly fellow we have the privlige of not experiancing the culture of the aztecs. Atleast i think its all gone, sure their might be a few who pass the culture in the realitive family but no real nation.

Now i must admit that i probably would have done the same if i were in his shoes and seen the only imaginable atrocities that were commited. But non-the-less you think he could of let SOME OF THE PEOPLE LIVE ! ! !

But Noooooo


Look its simple, people are stupid but a person is smart.

Listen to what i say, i am wiser than you think.

Originally posted by Waku


At least they had the chance of survive us. Your puritanism didn't give them that chance. That's why you have to go to Mexico to look for Indians to make your cowboys movies.

I could go into a long post on what the Spanish did to the Indians of North, Central and South America, but I will not. Let's say the European kill as many Indians as they could to take everything from them.

[Tingkai]

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that a country was always strong just because it is strong today.

Kc7mxo wrote: ?I don't think that any of the tribes/nations west of the missippi really fit the bill. Most of them were nomadic because of the area they lived.?

That?s an odd comment coming from someone in Washington. Native Americans along the Pacific coast had a highly developed culture and were not nomadic.

DarkCloud wrote: ?They were never all united. At best they should all be lumped into one group "Native Americans.? And: ?They never had political clout and only today have any because people 'feel sorry' for taking advantage of their anscestors.?

Well if you admit they were not united then why would you lump them into a single groups. The various native nations were separated by language and lifestyle. Some were nomadic. Some were farmers. Some were relatively rich with extensive time for the arts, others were poor.

Native Americans on the east coast of North America held the balance of power until the American revolution. If you look at the history of that time, the Europeans were battling among themselves to get native allies. The Brits defeated the French largely because the Iroquois league defeated the French native allies.

The Iroquois league also served as the blueprint for the U.S. constitution. The league had six nations, each controlling their own domestic policy, but united against outsiders. The Americans would use a similar division of power between state governments and the feds.

As well, the Iroquois voting system served as a model for American democracy.

As for the Europeans, they did not have world power until the 19th century. In the 17th and 18th century, China was one of the most civilized places on earth.

I've always found it interesting that countries develop great empires for a couple of hundred years and then decline; just like the AI civs that grow large, only to be destroyed by the human player.

[genghisvick]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
Well, this thread is just an invitation for spam, and I hosetly don't give it much of a chance for surviving a few posts before the mods step in, but here's an attempt at an educated answer

The US is currently the single greatest economic and military power in the world and has been at least economically the most powerful for almost a century, the military power is debatable for during the Cold War years. This power will remain for at least the near-future as well. It'll be a good 15-20 years before there is another serious challenger for the "most powerful" nation title. In the Civ games, most of the nations were built on conquest or made famous by war, why then exclude the nation who has been the most powerful nation for longer then the Alexander the Great even lived?

The Americans have created a culture that is strong and vibrant, whether you like it or hate it, the American culture is rapidly influxing itself into other nation's cultures as well (blue jeans and McDonalds anyone?) Civ3 is making a big push for culture, and American culture is so strong that other countries are just trying to keep it out (look at the French trying to outlaw Americanized French words)

When you look at civilizations the Americans are also a mix of everyone. America consists of immigrants from every part of the world. In essence then, America is a summation of all the past civilizations and cultures all in one place. If only for that reason, then America should be included.

What I think the main problem with people against America is the same problem as the Civ2 AI. You're big, we hate you. Simplistic, but probably closer to the truth then people will admit.

edit: changed a paragraph for clearer reading

great post, I agree with you 100% that the Americans should be included.

[genghisvick]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
Well, this thread is just an invitation for spam, and I hosetly don't give it much of a chance for surviving a few posts before the mods step in, but here's an attempt at an educated answer

The US is currently the single greatest economic and military power in the world and has been at least economically the most powerful for almost a century, the military power is debatable for during the Cold War years. This power will remain for at least the near-future as well. It'll be a good 15-20 years before there is another serious challenger for the "most powerful" nation title. In the Civ games, most of the nations were built on conquest or made famous by war, why then exclude the nation who has been the most powerful nation for longer then the Alexander the Great even lived?

The Americans have created a culture that is strong and vibrant, whether you like it or hate it, the American culture is rapidly influxing itself into other nation's cultures as well (blue jeans and McDonalds anyone?) Civ3 is making a big push for culture, and American culture is so strong that other countries are just trying to keep it out (look at the French trying to outlaw Americanized French words)

When you look at civilizations the Americans are also a mix of everyone. America consists of immigrants from every part of the world. In essence then, America is a summation of all the past civilizations and cultures all in one place. If only for that reason, then America should be included.

What I think the main problem with people against America is the same problem as the Civ2 AI. You're big, we hate you. Simplistic, but probably closer to the truth then people will admit.

edit: changed a paragraph for clearer reading

great post, I agree with you 100% that the Americans should be included. That would be like not including the Romans, America is a power unmatched in the world today and it looks like its gonna be that way for awhile.

[genghisvick]

Originally posted by Uffty
...are set in as a Civilization in this Game ?

I think the only reason they are in, is because Americans are making it.

I know most of you are americans, sorry btw, but in fact your "civ" instead of the spanish or portuguese sounds kinda very "national-proud" of the developers, since you are mostly european, asian and african natives.

Americans are not really a Civ, they are an independent colony, in historian view.

So I am not trying to be mean or something, but i want to have this explained.

I know most of you americans dont know where Europe or Africa is, neither do most of you know, that America has borders, but do you really think they have a bigger "cultural" aspect as the Spanish ??

Remember: Los Angeles was actually spanish...

I dont get your way of "we are the best"....its just a game!

Be honest and dont be arrogant. I love my german culture and I'm really happy we are in the game!

Comments from educated minds ?

You would rather have the spanish or portuguese than the worlds only remaining superpower?

[tniem]

Originally posted by joseph1944
I believe Sid and Firaxis will make that decision.

Haven't they already? In the civ of the week it says what civs are to come and Native Americans are not listed.


Am I missing something?

Originally posted by tniem


Haven't they already? In the civ of the week it says what Civs are to come and Native Americans are not listed.


Am I missing something?

Not really. In this game the Iroquois are representing the Native American as the Sioux did in Civ 2.

[red_jon]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to just portray the native Americans as 'barbarian' tribes? I don't mean to be un-pc or racist, but in civ terms they were not coordinated, did not have a united leader, did not build city improvements, etc.

The US shouod be in there - they are a civ in every sense of the word.

[Waku]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
I think a gentlemen by the name of Cortez would disagree with you. I do believe that was his name.

Thanks to this joly fellow we have the privlige of not experiancing the culture of the aztecs. Atleast i think its all gone, sure their might be a few who pass the culture in the realitive family but no real nation.

1.- Obviously you learn History reading cereal boxes. Mexican culture is the result of a cultural mix (wether u like it or not), that's what makes a mexican different from a spaniard (his aztec inheritance) and they are proud of it (USians can't say the same, 99% of them don't considere themselves descendant of any indian culture). You can blame spanish of doing this mix from a dominant position (that means explotation, spoilation, pludering, slavery, etc and I feel really ashamed for it) but WE DID NOT EXTERMINATE THEM as YOU DID

2.- Cortés was a XV cent. soldier, mainly motivated by crusaders. On the other hand we can find this kind of guys fighting under you "flag of freedom":

- William Walker
- Colonel Chivington


THIS is hilarious.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Tingkai
As for the Europeans, they did not have world power until the 19th century.

They never had, no tribe has ever had absolute power over the entire world or we would probably not be playing this game. But several had a Golden Age in which they could basically do what they wanted wherever they went. From Europe, the Romans, Spanish, Dutch and English all had such an age, in this order of appearance, even while there were always competitors waiting to undermine their authority.

[SK138]

I can't believe this post lasted this long!

My opinion is that the Spanish should be in, but you can't leave out the Americans. There would be controversy over excluding any civ to put in a new civ. Firaxis said that you can create your own civs, maybe that means you can have more than 16 or just save over one you don't like. I don't think this post should have gone on this long, every civ that Firaxis put in has some historical achievement and deserves to be in, but there is just so many other civs that deserve to be in, too, and if Firaxis spent the time to put them all in, we might have to wait a lot longer to play it.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by joseph1944


The Iroq. lived in what is now upper New York State. They built long houses with wood. They even frame their houses before coving it with hids.

But that was JUST the Iroquis. Not the entire League. The league was a confederation of indians living in the area. The league lasted less than 100 years. The league was a city-state civlization. The Iroquis were merely a 'tribe'.

Well if you admit they were not united then why would you lump them into a single groups. The various native nations were separated by language and lifestyle. Some were nomadic. Some were farmers. Some were relatively rich with extensive time for the arts, others were poor.

This is why I would lump them into one group. They all had a similar ideology, believing in one god but many spirits.

As for the Europeans, they did not have world power until the 19th century. In the 17th and 18th century, China was one of the most civilized places on earth.

Never said anything about this, however, China halted its development fairly soon after the development of the firecracker or we would all be Chinese right now.

China wasn't ever a world power if you define a world power as owning half of the world. The Mongols captured china. I define a world power like; The ancient Greeks or Persians, etc. (Master of a medium-area for long periods of time)

European major powers,

[Transcend]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

China wasn't ever a world power if you define a world power as owning half of the world. The Mongols captured china. I define a world power like; The ancient Greeks or Persians, etc. (Master of a medium-area for long periods of time)

European major powers,

Weren't Greece and Persia eventually conquered by other powers as well? How long was the Persian master of large territories? From 550BC to 331BC, a merely 219 years. All later Persian Empires were far smaller and less populous than China. Greek Empires held out even shorter, only from 331BC to 168(BC), a puny 163 years before being crushed. On the otherhand, China held large, non-chinese central asian territories for 200 years during the Han Dynasty, 150 more during Tang Dynasty, and permanently since 1757. Also, the Chinese core territory were as big and populous as the Roman Empire. If China was not a world power for you, then neither should Greece, Persia, Rome, France, and Germany be world powers. By your definition, only the British Empire at its height, the late 20th century America, and mid 20th century Soviet Union should ever be considered world powers.

[Jay Bee]

...and 16th century Spain Hasn't it been enough fuss already about it?

[Draco aka Se7eN]

1.- Obviously you learn History reading cereal boxes. Mexican culture is the result of a cultural mix (wether u like it or not), that's what makes a mexican different from a spaniard (his aztec inheritance) and they are proud of it (USians can't say the same, 99% of them don't considere themselves descendant of any indian culture). You can blame spanish of doing this mix from a dominant position (that means explotation, spoilation, pludering, slavery, etc and I feel really ashamed for it) but WE DID NOT EXTERMINATE THEM as YOU DID

2.- Cortés was a XV cent. soldier, mainly motivated by crusaders. On the other hand we can find this kind of guys fighting under you "flag of freedom":

Now Waku your just being silly

Sure the spaniards took advantage of the aztec women but does that really count, Americans did the same, Ive known quite a few people that are of indian decent but are more noticibly white or even african american (probably different circumstances). They dont go running around shouting im a native american but if you ask them where they come from they will tell you. So i kinda doubt your 99% is accurate. And yeah im pretty sure they exterminated the Aztecs.

Obviously you learn History reading cereal boxes.

Please dont insult me, you dont know me.

You seem a little bit too attatched to the past. Its better to learn from the past than live in the past. I did not Exterminate anyone, i am as far from being racist as anyone can be. The only people i dont like are racists. I really dislike when someone assumes someone is racist just because of their actions.

Waku your posts seem to single out americans as exterminators, I dont think that is a good way of looking at things. Looking at an entire civilization (nation, race, or whatever) that way is kinda racist. What i see is people that have made terrible mistakes, mistakes we should learn from so never to commit them again. We shouldnt dwell on these mistakes, that is the path to repeating them.

Its important to understand that People are stupid but a person is smart. In my own words this simply means dont be a part of the mob, think for your self. Also dont look at people at a whole but look at each person.

I think it would be wise to end this part of this discussion before things get out of hand.

[Transcend]

The only civ that didn't deserve to be in is the Iroquois. But if Firaxis argues that they represent all the aboriginial cultures, then I will be fine with it. Otherwise, Mongols/Turks/Eurasian Steppe Nomads come before Spaniards.

[Tingkai]

Darkcloud wrote: "But that was JUST the Iroquis. Not the entire League. The league was a confederation of indians living in the area. The league lasted less than 100 years. The league was a city-state civlization. The Iroquis were merely a 'tribe'. "

Darkcloud, you need to check your history books.

The Iroquois League initially had five nations or tribes, such as the Mohawk and Seneca. A sixth nation joined in 1722. To describe the Iroquois as just a tribe is completely wrong.

The league was also not a city-state civilization as each nation had numerous settlements.

As for the history, Encyclopedia Britannica contends that the league was formed in 1570, others place the origin date back to 900s. Even accepting the later date, the league lasted until the end of the American Revolution so that's 200 years.

For more info about the Iroquois, see http://www.tolatsga.org/iro.html

Originally posted by Tingkai
Darkcloud wrote: "But that was JUST the Iroquis. Not the entire League. The league was a confederation of indians living in the area. The league lasted less than 100 years. The league was a city-state civlization. The Iroquis were merely a 'tribe'. "

Darkcloud, you need to check your history books.

The Iroquois League initially had five nations or tribes, such as the Mohawk and Seneca. A sixth nation joined in 1722. To describe the Iroquois as just a tribe is completely wrong.

The league was also not a city-state civilization as each nation had numerous settlements.

As for the history, Encyclopedia Britannica contends that the league was formed in 1570, others place the origin date back to 900s. Even accepting the later date, the league lasted until the end of the American Revolution so that's 200 years.

For more info about the Iroquois, see http://www.tolatsga.org/iro.html

My World Book Encyclopedia said 1400 or maybe prior to. We are in the ball park as far as history is concern. On another thread (Lotus thread) I found out the Hopi have lived on the same land for the last 1,301 years and are still there today. They built adobe house 4 stories tall. The Spanish were shock when they saw their housing because it was the same in Spain (1600s).

[Uffty]

Originally posted by red_jon
Wouldn't it be more accurate to just portray the native Americans as 'barbarian' tribes? I don't mean to be un-pc or racist, but in civ terms they were not coordinated, did not have a united leader, did not build city improvements, etc.

The US shouod be in there - they are a civ in every sense of the word.

I dont know what you are up to, but the USA is a country and not a civ! I dont want this discussion get ouf of hands either, but I think some people here are taking things way too serious or even dont have a life.

In real live the US is a nation, military powerful and gives a big big freedom with an ancient voting system (the world's never forgetting that ), a president from the village, NO culture (if you dont count inventions like ...oh well...Pepsi ).

I dont wanna hear Native Americans as Barbarians. They weren't so warful.
This sounds really kinda racist to me.
I have nothing against americans nor native americans, but putting natives so down, being barbarians is not very bright, and speaks of typically computer-based stupidness

[Uffty]

Originally posted by red_jon
Wouldn't it be more accurate to just portray the native Americans as 'barbarian' tribes? I don't mean to be un-pc or racist, but in civ terms they were not coordinated, did not have a united leader, did not build city improvements, etc.

The US shouod be in there - they are a civ in every sense of the word.

I dont know what you are up to, but the USA is a country and not a civ! I dont want this discussion get ouf of hands either, but I think some people here are taking things way too serious or even dont have a life.

In real live the US is a nation, military powerful and gives a big big freedom with an ancient voting system (the world's never forgetting that ), a president from the village, NO culture (if you dont count inventions like ...oh well...Pepsi ).

I dont wanna hear Native Americans as Barbarians. They weren't so warful.
This sounds really kinda racist to me.
I have nothing against americans nor native americans, but putting natives so down, being barbarians is not very bright, and speaks of typically computer-addictical stupidness

[tniem]

Originally posted by Uffty
In real live the US is a nation, military powerful and gives a big big freedom with an ancient voting system (the world's never forgetting that ),

Yeah and were not forgetting it either. That is why were fixing it. But in the end the election proved why the American system works. There are very few nations on Earth that would not have errupted in war or a regime just taking power if that had happened to them. Some in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and the U.S. So we now go and fix our problems.

NO culture (if you dont count inventions like ...oh well...Pepsi ).

You might not consider it culture but in Civ terms it everything that those borders represent. The U.S.'s influence or culture single handly has spread around the world. In Civ terms, the US probably has long ago won the game with the cultural victory tract.

I dont wanna hear Native Americans as Barbarians. They weren't so warful.

Yes they did fight wars. Many Native American groups hated each other. They were just like the ancient groups around the world. They were just behind Europe, Asia, and Mesopatamia. They fought for dominance and were moved along in many of the same ways as groups elsewhere were.

This sounds really kinda racist to me.

Barbarians have taken on a negative conotation. I recall learning in history class, the word originally stood for any stranger in one of the old civs. It eventually came to mean invaders because they were strangers. And of course it is human nature to think other groups are inferior to you and so that is how the word came to mean what it does. I am not sure if that is true but it certainly explains a lot.

[Uffty]

Well good answer, but still it's not much satisfying.

You said americans have culture...?

In my opinion, and thats only a opinion ok, I think a big part of a culture is represented by the language. Normally americans have no language (besides the hispanic or chinese, but they belong to other cultures). The language you use for communications is english, a little bit "raped" over the years and spoken way different than good old Londoners do.

But anyway, you don't understand views from outside.

Let me put it so..Americans should be of course in the game, but Spanish shouldnt be have left out. Well after all, you can customize.

So my dear Amis...cheers!