America isn't old enough to be in Civ3

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Admiral Stukov

Sure we may have pushed Indians off their land (despite popular belief, we didn't massacre them... European diseases did), but around the same time Britian was busy annihilating the China because China wouldn't buy Opium. Honestly, some of you people should look at your own countries atrocities before you look at Americas.

Just one salient example of the non-disease extermination of Indians immediately comes to mind- ever hear of Wounded Knee?

In 1636, the Masschusetts Bay Colony sent a military force along with troops from Connecticut and with Narragansett allies and virtually wiped out the Pequot nation. Some surviving women and children were sold as slaves in Massachusetts and Connecticut, or transported to the West Indies.

In 1676, the heads of Philip of the Wampanoags and his relatives were displayed on Plymouth blockhouse, his wife and child sold into slavery in Bermuda, and the few hundreds of survivors of the massacres transported as slaves, to the West Indies or Spain. It was effectively the end of the Wampanoag nation.

The Indians of Ohio: 'are more nearly allied to the Brute than to the Human Creation...no reason to conciliate this execrable race. I am fully resolved to... extirpate them root and branch.'

-Jeffrey Amherst.

George Rogers Clark, with the Kentucky militia, from 1779 onwards, struck at the Shawnees, killing many of their people, destroying houses and crops in the fields, driving the Shawnees into Indiana.

In 1782, frontiersmen massacred Christianized Indians at Gnadenhutten in Ohio.

Henry Knox as Secretary of War, informed Congress that settlers from Watauga, seizing lands in the heart of Cherokee country, were carrying out unprovoked outrages, amounting to 'an actual though informal war.'

I could of course, go on to the appropriation of Indian territory under Andrew Jackson, by a variety of means, through force and inequitable treaties, the various campaigns against the Plains Indians, massacres of Californian Indians (some for 'sport'), but I think the gist can be gathered from the early examples I've listed. I'm not singling out Anglo-Americans, because undoubtedly the Spanish and the Russian traders on the Pacific seaboard were equally bad, but blaming it on smallpox and influenza- did Colt manufacture viruses in those days?

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Admiral Stukov
The last ditch forum tactic of a debate... bail out while putting words in your opponents mouths to justify the retreat.

I told you exactly what I thought. But both in the post I referred to and in most others all you do is saying 'he sais this, but this is what he really means.' Talking about putting words in your opponents mouth...

edit: Now let's continue with the real discussion.

Molly Bloom: It's true the Americans treated the Indians cruelly, just think of the Cherokee. And indeed, just like the Europeans did.

About the colony status: England never was a colony of the continent in the way America was, that is, a region politically controlled by a distant country and totally settled by immigrants. The same goes for China and the Middle-East.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Two things.

America IN Civ games: Why? Interesting and enjoyable to play - and TRADITION. America was one of the first Civs (in the first Civ), thus my heightened sense of tradition requires it to stay there. IMO future Civs should have MORE Civs, adding to but not taking from the old ones.

Now I know the conversation has moved on, and it looks like ppl are no longer attacking America/Europe, but I have the itch to post my views. So, for the few who will actually read this :

I like Americans. In fact I have found that ppl from all cultures are agreeable and not arrogant, even when they are talking about their own country. BUT American patriotism will piss me off like nothing else on Earth. Why? It feels very irrational, even to me, but I think I have found why.

I am slightly patriotic myself, and will sometimes engage in a mocking contest with some Aussies I know, particularly when they beat us again in the cricket or netball or whatever.
BUT their patriotism, and that of many other countries doesn't bother me. I think Americans are MORE patriotic about MORE aspects of their country and Civilization than almost any other place on the planet. Many will die for their country/cause, but so many will defend America verbally and, some would say, excessively so, that it annoys those from other cultures. I have also noted that many other nationalities are willing to accept criticism about their country, but Americans will not. It is a preponderance that they can dislike aspects of their country, but somehow still love it enough to feel that it is important to defend it to the death when someone ELSE brings this dislike up. This is an admirable quality, but certainly irritates the hell out of me, as it is far more patriotic than I can imagine going.

As for the US being an amalgamation of many different cultures - yes it is. But what about the vast numbers of ppl and areas untouched by foreign influences? I have visited the US (albeit briefly), and my impression was that, yes, the coasts are very cosmopolitan. But as I moved inland, the variations got less and less, and I saw the America that others love to hate, and that they cite as the problem with Americans. These Americans were not necessarily racist or suchlike, but they had contact with ONE culture and had minds restricted by this lack of connection with the outside. It is possible to live in the US for life with minimal other-country or other-culture contact, and I believe this is why Americans are sometimes seen as bigoted and arrogant.

The sheer prevalence of Americana in the world today, especially thru such media as TV makes others feel that their culture is being sidelined. This is because Americans get on with American life, and we happen to see it overseas. I'm sure Americans would feel the same about my country, New Zealand, if they had to sit thru rather crap TV shows and movies made by Kiwis FOR Kiwis.

/sniif/ Can't we all just... get along now?

[Harovan]

Just a few small remarks:

The Americans I know are friendly and polite people and I really like them, although their (doubled after 9-11) patriotism (I call it nationalism) and this "Who-isn't-with-us-is-against-us" attitude sometimes sucks. And some might complain, but I don't count Hollywood (esp. after WWII) a big cultural achievement. (Right, the Oktoberfest in Munich isn't one either )

But that's not the point. The main subject of this thread is: Are the Americans worth to be a tribe in Civ3. And here's my humble opinion - yes they are! Right, Lincoln looks funny in the fur cap (a bit reminds Daniel Boone) and a summit of Abe with Cleo is something I grin about, but it isn't more ridiculous than a Babylonian aircraft carrier, threatening to bomb the Aztecs back to stone age. The ancient age with the Americans may look strange, but I can't think to play in the Modern Age without Uncle Sam.

Keep them in the game God bless America (never thought I would say this words some day...)

Just my 2 Euro-Cent.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
America IN Civ games: Why? Interesting and enjoyable to play - and TRADITION. America was one of the first Civs (in the first Civ), thus my heightened sense of tradition requires it to stay there. IMO future Civs should have MORE Civs, adding to but not taking from the old ones.

I am attached to traditions too - but I also think old mistakes should be corrected.

I don't have very much time right now so I can't react to the rest you said. But I agree with most of your other points - you gave a good and rational explanation.

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The Americans I know are friendly and polite people and I really like them, although their (doubled after 9-11) patriotism (I call it nationalism) and this "Who-isn't-with-us-is-against-us" attitude sometimes sucks. And some might complain, but I don't count Hollywood (esp. after WWII) a big cultural achievement. (Right, the Oktoberfest in Munich isn't one either )

You take the words out of my mouth.

But that's not the point. The main subject of this thread is: Are the Americans worth to be a tribe in Civ3. And here's my humble opinion - yes they are! Right, Lincoln looks funny in the fur cap (a bit reminds Daniel Boone) and a summit of Abe with Cleo is something I grin about, but it isn't more ridiculous than a Babylonian aircraft carrier, threatening to bomb the Aztecs back to stone age. The ancient age with the Americans may look strange, but I can't think to play in the Modern Age without Uncle Sam.

But wouldn't it be better to let the Americans come in the game later, after an independence war? This has been said before, and it's a compromise which would improve Civ greatly.

At last some nice comments made by those who don't agree with the sentence in the title of this thread.

[oriel94]

America isn't old enough to be in Civ3?:

USA = 1776 (or 1587 if you count the date of first English colonisation)
Germany = 1871
United Kingdom = 1707 (or 1603 if you take it from the reign of James I, who was also James VI of Scotland)
India = 1947 (prior that that the British Empire, prior to that the Mughal Empire, prior to that the Persian Empire etc etc)

Sure, as civs the Germans, English and Indians are older in some available senses. But so are the Americans. Their civ, like those of the English, French, Germans and Russians are rooted in a broader and older European culture/civilisation. Euro-lefties resent the Americans in much the same way that a layabout on social welfare resents his younger, pushier, brasher, more optimistic, richer, more influential, stronger, more successful, and (supposedly) less sophisticated younger brother. This accounts for the chippy tone of many of the European contributers, and for the brash tone of many of the Americans.

And if we don't let the Americans come onto the scene until the 18th century, how about ensuring that the Egyptians, Romans, (Ancient) Greeks and Aztecs all disappear at about their alloted times. And what happens to dear old Portugal and Spain, for a two or three dazzling centuries both were world-wide superpowers. I could go on pointlessly like this for pages.

Civ 3 is just a game. It's not 'realistic' in a number of important ways, of which America's presence in 4000 BC is not the most noticeable. America's presence makes the game more fun. Isn't that enough?

For a much more realistic historical sim, try Europa Universalis 2. This is more historically life-like than Civ3, but IMHO less fun to play because it is more historically rigid (e.g. the Americans must fight their war of independence).

Anyway, I think America is now (the most important) part of a larger global Civ which consists of all the Anglophone democracies (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ; the 'Anglosphere'). That's just a general observational point that has nothing to do with appropriate game-play decisions for toys like Civ3.

[muppet]

Originally posted by oriel94
America isn't old enough to be in Civ3?:
And if we don't let the Americans come onto the scene until the 18th century, how about ensuring that the Egyptians, Romans, (Ancient) Greeks and Aztecs all disappear at about their alloted times. And what happens to dear old Portugal and Spain, for a two or three dazzling centuries both were world-wide superpowers. I could go on pointlessly like this for pages.

Fresno (see quote above):

I've waited a few days for a real reply to my intial post and vote, which I tried to word a little humorously/sarcastically to avoid a flame war.

This is where I get really confused about this whole colony and schism thing, and oriel94's questions/statements about the matter make it even more difficult for me to understand.

If America should not be introduced until we historically came into being, what about the European nations?

What do I do if I want to play Germany? Keep hitting the End Turn button until 800AD comes around? Then what? Voila! A settler appears in some remote un-settled island somewhere?

Who do I play against during the pre AD years if I choose to play China or Egypt or something like that? The point is, some of the European nations in the game weren't around either when Egypt and Greece were around.

I'm beginning to feel like oreil94 on this matter. It just feels like racism to me.

If you could explain this to me I'd be grateful. If I'm just in the way of a traditional flame war don't bother responding.

[Harovan]

This is not meant as a flame, and I voted for America, but I can also follow some arguments of the people who are against it. The initial tribes in Civ(I,II,III,CtP,CtP2) are not countries, but culturally and ethnically linked communities of people. That is what all other Civ3 tribes have and the Americans lack. They are an amalgam of almost all other cultures/ethnics. That doesn't make them bad of course (at the countrary!), but if we would strongly define the Civ3 tribes as ethically linked communities, the Americans are out.

Originally posted by muppet
What do I do if I want to play Germany? Keep hitting the End Turn button until 800AD comes around?

Ummmm... Who do you think was Hermann the Cheruskian (the Romans called him Arminius), who did badly beat up Varus and his legions in 9AD and stopped Rome's further expansion to the north? "Varus, Varus, give me my legions back". I know, in Civ3 categories they could be defined as "Barbarians", but Arminius was a leader of one of the Germanic tribes. And these tribes existed much longer. They may have been not so high cultures as Romans, Greeks and Egyptians, but nevertheless they existed.

[oriel94]

Oh dear ... Am I being drawn back into this never-ending thread?

The Americans are perhaps the only country to have created an 'ethnic' identity out of civic ideals. It is the constant reference by Americans to some of those civic ideals which irritates some of the 'blood and soil' Euro-bunch.

The ethnic identity might be a conscious creation, deliberately perpetuated through the generations, but that doesn't make it unreal.

Some European countries have done something similar - or tried to. Many Englishmen and even some Scots prefer to think of themselves as 'British'. Northern Italians have more in common with their non-Italian neigbours than people from Sicily. But the Italian State has tried hard to deliberately create an Italian 'people'.

Enough, enough! I feel the old madness returning.

It's just a game.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by oriel94
Oh dear ... Am I being drawn back into this never-ending thread?

I think you returned by your free will.

Originally posted by oriel94
The Americans are perhaps the only country to have created an 'ethnic' identity out of civic ideals. It is the constant reference by Americans to some of those civic ideals which irritates some of the 'blood and soil' Euro-bunch.

Without the Euro-bunch having taken away the native tribe's soil in a bloody way, neither USA nor Australia would exist the way the do at present.

Originally posted by oriel94
The ethnic identity might be a conscious creation, deliberately perpetuated through the generations, but that doesn't make it unreal.

Agreed.

Originally posted by oriel94
Some European countries have done something similar - or tried to. Many Englishmen and even some Scots prefer to think of themselves as 'British'. Northern Italians have more in common with their non-Italian neigbours than people from Sicily. But the Italian State has tried hard to deliberately create an Italian 'people'.

Neither Britain nor Italia are tribes in Civ3. I think there are far too much tribes in Civ3. I think, especially the European tribes should be reduced, may be having besides the classical civs (Romans/Greens) only one "Central/Northern European" or so tribe and remove English, French and Germans. May be making one more African, a Southern American and (yes!) an Australian or Oceanian tribe instead. The European cultures are not different enough.

Originally posted by oriel94
Enough, enough! I feel the old madness returning.

Three words: Increase your medication

Originally posted by oriel94
It's just a game.

Right, so let's play and not argue.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by oriel94

United Kingdom = 1707 (or 1603 if you take it from the reign of James I, who was also James VI of Scotland)

The civ is the English, not the British. There is a line of English Kings going back for over a millenium.

[muppet]

Oriel94 and Sir Ralph:

Thank you both!

Your recent posts have enlightened me greatly as to both the European and American sides of this debate. There is just too much noise and not enough music in the other posts.

Whether or not I agree or disagree with anything both of you have posted is entirely irrelevant -- I just like learning.

Thank you.

[Roadkill Quiche]

The game itself offers one rational criterion for American inclusion -- the modern wonders. Hoover Dam, the Manhattan Project, and the Apollo Program are each major American achievements. Though most find it half-baked, the SETI Program is also American, and America was a major moving force behind the United Nations. While I doubt that there will ever be a single "Cure For Cancer" or "Longetivity in a Bottle," the human genome project (primarily American with minor European contribution) would likely provide the foundation for those wonders.

So, no America, no Modern Wonders -- unless you want to replace them with the Chunnel, the Euro, ABBA, or the 99% income tax.

[oriel94]

As I read it, the question which forms the title of this thread is quite clear. Is 'America' 'old enough' to be a civ in Civ3. Most contributors simply do not address this question at all, but employ the thread as a platform to air a number of opinions about quite different matters.

The question refers to 'America' and not 'the Americans'. This must mean the 'United States of America', and that interpretation would fit with the game civ's leader, its city names and its unique unit.

So, is the USA old enough to be in Civ3. The US was founded in 1776. If 'America' is not 'old enough' to be in Civ3, then neither is 'India' (1947) or 'Germany' (1871). If you're happy with that outcome, then fine - go ahead and argue that 'America' isn't old enough to be in Civ3.

You may object that 'the Indians' and 'the Germans' are the civs in Civ3 and that they are much older than the independent countries which bear their names. You might also add that the game includes 'the Americans' and not 'America'. You would be right, of course, but your objection would not be to the point: It would not address the question actually posed in the title to this thread.

For those uninterested in discussing the question actually put in the thread's title, might I suggest starting another thread with a more accurate title. How about, 'The Americans should be excluded from Civ3 because of their youth, success and crassness'. I would still argue against it, but at least we would be in the correct thread.

[Evil Robot]

Originally posted by oriel94
You may object that 'the Indians' and 'the Germans' are the civs in Civ3 and that they are much older than the independent countries which bear their names. You might also add that the game includes 'the Americans' and not 'America'. You would be right, of course, but your objection would not be to the point: It would not address the question actually posed in the title to this thread.

Keeping in mind that 'the Americans' are now 510 years old as a people (1492). I think that fact, by itself, qualifies America as a Civ.