Why the walltext just to give examples that go against your own point, Hidalgo's revolt wasn't to create a native state, as you said it was against the usurpation of the Spanish Monarchy. They wanted to create new states a la europea like every other revolt made by the local warlords of Mexico during the independence process, not to revive tribal kingdoms.
Who said Hidalgo wanted to create a native state? He did not even wanted to do a new state, I indicate that.
The point was that any revolt created by a group of people that have a IDENTITY and CULTURE different to the ruling class would likely end on an ETHNIC or NATIONAL liberation war, despite the original objetive (like did Mexico or the already mainly Anglo Texas).
The accumulated resentment to "THE OTHER" is allway a too huge element to be ignored.
The many, prolonged and very violent mayan rebelion all along 19th century show it (plus all the other native "uprising".
And despite what Hidalgo wanted this endend with a independent nation named after the "AZTECS".
If you do not know that the name most used to refer to the "Aztecs" was "Mexicanos", even nahuas as a whole were used to be called "Mexicanos" most of the colonial time and the 19th century, nahuatlatos/nahuatlacos was used sometimes, mexicas just on the early conquest and "Aztecs" never until some American scholars wanted to differentiate them from modern Mexicans. Not to forget the national emblem of Mexico is the "Aztec" foundational symbol. For terms of 1821 both the "Aztec" and the newly created Mexican empire would have been named Mexican Empire!
What in hell do the Zapatista guerrilla has to do with this conversation, take down the salf hating you have and stay on topic, I know mexicans have a hard time with this but try it. I was arguing that is makes no sense for the Aztec Empire to pop out of Mexico in 1800 because they lost a war
Well have to do that EZLN is a movement about the NATIVE PEOPLE! Of course they have post-1821 ideals like a huge socialist base, but the mayans and other native peoples (also afroamerican people) from the region are rebelling all along the colonial time, 19th and even late 20th century. The idionsyncrasy of native peoples Is the most relevant factor on all of these uprisings, despite how ironic it sound the colonial spanish government achieved peace with the native majority because they respected the native autonomy, ruling class, laws, customs and traditional. The Bourbon Reforms and ideologies of Enlightenment, Nationalism and Positivism from the independent hispanoamerican governments stripped the native peoples from the rights and lands they keep on colonial times.
The native population and their cultures were there, on their land, with their "delayed" way of life, ideals and objetives. But every time somebody harassed them they were ready to explode. Like was the case with the Bourbon Reforms+Napoleonic Invasion, or with the decided politics of independent hispanoamerican governments to "civilize", strip away or plainly exterminate the native nations.
Some of those rebelions are huge and with clear separatist, nationalist and ethnic objetives, the mayans on the Guerra de Castas were literally massacring criollos and mestizos half 19th century at the point the failed Republic of Yucatan came back to ask for Mexican help. Both Yucatan Republic and Cruzoob wanted and achieve some recognition from power like USA and UK, at the end that did not work because inner struggles, but this was so close to EU4 timeline to pretend it could not be the case on game. Not to forget the lesser but similar events on EU4 time I already pointed above.
Keep native cultures is GAME RELEVANT, because rebelions and administration of provinces are influenced by culture. The revolts and other difficulties of have different cultures was a thing to deal for the real/historical spanish colonial nations. It was not as easy to deal as pre-Golden Century neither as absurd (religion) after Golden Century.
Like I said the easier way to avoid "Aztec" revolts is to remove cores after religious conversion (of course this is also a problem of Golden Century). But there are not reason to change culture. Is OK to have the option to change culture like on any other region, but the AI should not have specific reason to change it beyond the regular rules.
One Spanish related mechanic (as should be for a DLC about Iberic nations) would have the Repúblicas de Indios and Reducciones to deal with this especial condition of the Americas.
Mexico still is on the top of the nations with more native languages, and this is just a fraction of the massive fragmentation of the Mesoamerican states. Why is this relevant to game? Because this also was a key element for the colonial government, they ruled over a native majority, but a highly divided native majority. Every time one revolted they would have problem to organize with the other native nations that hated them long before spaniards arrived.
On game this mozaic of cultures need a special mechanic beyond the limititations of the base number of "accepted cultures". So the need for the special colonial spanish mechanic, that have a historical base. By the way this diversity of cultures is also a reason for the fail of mesoamerican kingdoms to built lasting empires.
I am walking about natives, not narcos or political motivated guerrillas on the XIX century jesus christ.
The incompetence of modern Mexico is not relevant to the discussion.
I just explained. Still you need to read a lot more if you think these problems are not related to the history of Mexico. Some of these elements could be tracked way back to precolumbine times (like said).
The deal between colonial government and local native leaders was on a very simple way like this:
SPAIN:
Want native conversion to catholicism (despite the huge sincretic concesions), loyalty to the King of Spain, land and worforce.
MESOAMERICANS:
Rights over their land, keep the privileges for their elite and some degree of respect for their customs.
Luckly for the spaniards the syncretism worked for nations used to have new gods each time a new nation invaded them, same with the tribute to the new regional power. One time you know about the mesoamerican customs, the colonial isntitutions and the modern way of life of the indigenous people you will see that most of them have prety strong communal identity, and usually just want to be leave alone with their traditions and rhythm of life. Still, history show us that they could unite and revolt (at some point) if they feel the need.
Why the "nationality calling"?
I did not care from where you are or who are your ancestors (I said mine just to counter your argument of "I know because I am..."), this is my last response to any cheap Youtube-like reply like that.
If you want to suggest game mechanics to make the game more enterntaining, free to different ways to play, and at the same time more historically accurate, that is OK.
But I cant not expect nothing but prejudice and strong bias from people that said simple minded things like "the people of X nation is Y thing"
Have a good day.
.png){kind=avatar}