The most glaring omission...

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Only one person here claims that the Iroquois were on the level of, say, the Spanish, but many want the Iroquois included for different reasons than simple "importance".

The Spanish on the same level as the Iroquois? They'd wish!

[static]

Originally posted by Chris 62
In the modern world, we now have a tendancy to view history through rose colored glasses in reguards to native american cultures.
The fact is, and always was, these primative societies were on subsistance survival level (which is why there was so few of them in the Americas to start with), and were accustomed to taking what they wanted from others by force as the first option (read the links if you disagree).
They had the monumental misfortune of meeting a people (the Europeans) whom would also take what they wanted, and were better at it, but would have lived peacably if not continually attacked (Native custom, for the Six Nations, the yearly tribal raid on neigbhors).
Over time, as the Europeans multiplied, they would become cronic aggressors, and constant treaty breakers, but the fact is, the natives began this pattern, having "sowed the wind, they were forced to reap the whirlwind" so to speak.
We can't say that the europeans would have behaved any differently had the natives not continually attacked them, but we will never know that with any certaincy.

WHAT THE??? There is NO way that a reputable institution like Columbia would even acknowledge this BS, I hope . I don't know where to begin with these ridiculous statements, you don't have to go crazy just to support your argument.

[orange]

static - no, I believe you're simply backing up what Chris is trying to say. It's partially political correctness, it forces us to boost the signifigance of things like Native American culture. In the overall scheme of human existance, Native North American tribes such as the Iroquois play a minimal role...and that is dominated by their place in European based wars, like the seven years war, or the American revolution.

[Boris Godunov]

Guys...

*Dispenses chill pills all around*

Deep breaths, everyone. Relax. Repeat mantra: "It's just a game."

Ok, it isn't JUST a game, but still...

Chris,

While I agree with the general point that the Iroquois should have been supplanted in the game by another, more world-altering Civ (and I still say the Ottomans/Muslims is the obvious choice), I pretty much categorically disagree with your post down the line.

First, the links you provided, while by no means placing the Iroquois on a level of "Great Civilization," also do not support your thesis of equating them to Cro-Magnon man. Your comparison is quite dubious, because you say the Iroquois recorded things via wampum. This in itself shows a sophistication (while not comparable to our written language) of record-keeping that eluded Cro-Magnon. You say the Iroquois had no legal code, but they had an eloborate constitution (which you can read for yourself here: http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/iroquois.html

The level of cultural complexity spelled out in this document far surpasses anything we know about Cro-Magnon many times over. As for science, don't forget that the Iroquois did have an inventive agriculture system, again far more complex than anything known to be Cro-Magnon. And you can't say Cro-Magnon had no legal code or education or science, as we don't know since there are no written records.

You are all guilty of being politically correct, when you assert the the six nations were a "great civilization".

While I have never asserted this, nor will, I don't think it's wise to presume the intentions of others or why they feel this way. Political correctness is a red-herring statement misused all over, so I wouldn't bandy it around here. It's a label meant to infer illegitimacy on the in-depth consideration of previously ignored or little-valued subjects. Most people who throw this label at people are doing so because they're afraid of having their assumptions and prejudices uprooted.

Over time, as the Europeans multiplied, they would become cronic aggressors, and constant treaty breakers, but the fact is, the natives began this pattern, having "sowed the wind, they were forced to reap the whirlwind" so to speak.

Hmm, sounds like the American commander's defense of massacring women and children at Wounded Knee. The fact is not that the natives began this pattern. That's not fact at all. It's a complex issue, but European's track records in treatment of indigenous peoples is abysmal at best. Did the Iroquois act with violence? Given the barbarous tendencies of the Mohawks, I'm sure. Did they start it? I don't think we can say that. In this situation, the best you can say is that it took two to tango. And the Europeans met violence with violence ten times over.

We can't say that the europeans would have behaved any differently had the natives not continually attacked them, but we will never know that with any certaincy.

I can say, without any hesitation, that the Europeans would have behaved exactly the same without this supposed "continual aggression." Why? The proof is to look at every other colonization attempt by Europeans around the world. Whether it be the Spanish conquistadors, the American colonists, the South African Boers, the Australians, there is one consistency: the violent subjugation and virtual elimination of indigenous peoples to make way for colonial expansion.

The same is true of Meso-American (Although far more advanced), still can't be considered great.

Considering most historians (read Arnold Toynbee for an example) rank the Mexic, Mayan and Andean civilizations as both "real" civilizations and important, I will have to disagree here as well.

In historical discussions, I am frank and to the point.

As am I, and let me be frank: your post demonstrated a lot of bad history and false claims. While I agree with the point that the Iroquois should not be in the game, I cannot abide using such methods to try and prove the point.

Cheers.

[static]

Life is like a box of chocalates...

Originally posted by orange
static - no, I believe you're simply backing up what Chris is trying to say. It's partially political correctness, it forces us to boost the signifigance of things like Native American culture. In the overall scheme of human existance, Native North American tribes such as the Iroquois play a minimal role...and that is dominated by their place in European based wars, like the seven years war, or the American revolution.

Have to disagree, I don't think I'm backing up what Chris is saying. He's making assertions that the Iroquois were only the equal of Cro-Magnon man, and that they were the aggressors to the Europeans. I just find his comments really misguided and uninformed. I think people need to keep in mind the the Iroquois were the dominant Civ in Native America, and were significant for centuries. Just because they weren't huge in European history, doesn't mean they weren't important in World history.

[orange]

I didn't mean "backing up" as in you were supporting him. I meant giving credibility to his claims that some of the statements made about Native American culture are embellished in the name of Political Correctness, and to an extent, this idea of multi-culturalism.

I think comparing them to Cro-Magnon man is wrong, but it's a lot closer than saying that they rival the Spanish or any Euro civ in world impact. The Iroquois are a dominant civ in Native America, you're right. But as I said before, overall, when compared with all other civs, they are insignifigant. 16 spots and the Iroquois make it, but the Spanish don't? That to me, is a bit hard to swallow.

[Guynemer]

I'd like to strike my previous apology from the record, and stand by my initial assessment:

Ignorant and foolish. Oh well.

[Waku]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Not sure what you're trying to say here, Waku.

As many differents civs as possible is only one of the improvements I wanted. 99% of the civ2 features I wanted to be fixed or improved with civ3 will remain almost the same, "wonderful animated units brandishing their swords consuming all my PC resources to not to be able to play and come to apolyton at the same time" is not what I was waiting for.

[static]

Originally posted by orange
I didn't mean "backing up" as in you were supporting him. I meant giving credibility to his claims that some of the statements made about Native American culture are embellished in the name of Political Correctness, and to an extent, this idea of multi-culturalism.

I think comparing them to Cro-Magnon man is wrong, but it's a lot closer than saying that they rival the Spanish or any Euro civ in world impact. The Iroquois are a dominant civ in Native America, you're right. But as I said before, overall, when compared with all other civs, they are insignifigant. 16 spots and the Iroquois make it, but the Spanish don't? That to me, is a bit hard to swallow.

I will definantly agree that the Spanish should be in ahead of Iroquis , I can't understand how they could be left out. But the Iroquis influence was much greater than many Euro, Asian, African Civs, they would be in my Top 25. After the Top 10 Civs, IMHO(Romans, British, Chinese, Egyptian, American,French, Spanish, Greek, Russian, Ottoman Empire) its kinda a toss-up for the next 15, so picking only 16 Civs is ALWAYS going to a controversial process.

[Ubik]

Orange

Well, I am one of the supporters of Spain, to make that clear. Three civs I think are really missing from civ3: primarily the Arabs and secondly the Mongols and the Spaniards.

But, as for the Iroquis deal... well, because of the Iroqui confederation and their constitutional system it was considered the dominant (culturaly speaking) civ of North America.

Others know more than me about this and I should let them speak of, but this whole "let's have a civ from every corner of the world" exceeds the PCness of Firaxis. It is not about PCness, it is about cultural diversity...

...and, yes, marketing

But still, the major error in this game is that they do not include a real (black) African civilization, but the insignificant Zulus... that really pisses me off

[static]

Originally posted by Ubik
Orange

Well, I am one of the supporters of Spain, to make that clear. Three civs I think are really missing from civ3: primarily the Arabs and secondly the Mongols and the Spaniards.

But, as for the Iroquis deal... well, because of the Iroqui confederation and their constitutional system it was considered the dominant (culturaly speaking) civ of North America.

Others know more than me about this and I should let them speak of, but this whole "let's have a civ from every corner of the world" exceeds the PCness of Firaxis. It is not about PCness, it is about cultural diversity...

...and, yes, marketing

But still, the major error in this game is that they do not include a real (black) African civilization, but the insignificant Zulus... that really pisses me off

I agree the Zulus weren't significant, and the Mali or Ethopians (who were significant) would be better historical choices. But..., the Zulus have a known leader with distinct qualities that add to gameplay. This is the only Civ included that not even in my Top 100, however I'll let this one pass in the interest of fun and variety.

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by Ribannah


The Spanish on the same level as the Iroquois? They'd wish!

Put your crusade to rest, dear. Don't we have had enough of this nonsense already?

[Jay Bee]

This has been said already a good number of times but hey, another one won't hurt. The problem is of course why Firaxis limited themselves to 16 civs. Only purely commercial reasons justify such decision. This is sad, especially because of the educative potential of this game.

[Ribannah]

About warfare in the region before the Europeans arrived: you are both half right.
The constant aggression between all the different tribes was precisely the reason why the Iroquois confederacy was formed: so that they could at least have peace among themselves, and stand united against others. There is talk of a mythical Peacekeeper (possibly Huron) who set things into motion.
Later more such confederacies arose, such as the Wabanaki (1710), the Three Fires and the Seven Nations. There were other types of bonding as well, for instance the Cree-Soto-Nakadu alliance (the Nakudu, or Assiniboin, split off from the Sioux).

Static: is not the Ethiopian queen Sheba equally well-known as Shaka Zulu?

[Waku]

Do not forget when Wabanaki joined the Nakadu forming the biggest alliance ever against the redbearded farmers of South Carolina.