Tinto Maps #27 - 22nd of November 2024 - Oceania

[Deleted user]

Why is there no impassable terrain around the great dividing range? It was one of the major early hurdle to colonization especially around the Blue mountains.

Edit: upon reading up a bit more about the Blue Mountains and colonisation I think they would be better represented as a modifier. Personally I think there should just be some small sections of impassable terrain around the Snowies to make gameplay in the area (as it will mostly be colonisation) more intresting.

 

[Deleted user]

Is Ngunawali meant to be Ngunnawal? If so they're to far south, you have them around Corryong in the location erroneously named Ngunawal when they are a group local to Canberra so they should be around the location currently named Ngarigo. Also the Ngarigo location shouldn't exist where it is, as the people it's named for are around where you have put Ngunawali around the locations of Cooma and Thaua. I would suggest renaming or even splitting the location in two based on its size.

 

[hellfirematt]

Continuing on my suggestions for names and location borders in Australia, this time in Victoria. Though I have seen JimmyDD9000's post with solid suggestions above https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...f-november-2024-oceania.1716884/post-30070502

Note: I think that Victoria should have impassible terrain in both the Grampians and across the east of the state.

Without the rivers drawn on the map, it was hard to line it up but I think I got something.

The big gripe I have with my suggestions is that a whole bunch of nations inhabited both sides of the Murray, and I think this should be a clear border for locations. But splitting the locations this way meant that a bunch of these would've been too small comparatively. So I combined them together on each side of the river. Only the Baraba Baraba (Echuca and Denilikoon) found itself on each side.

Ballaarat
Nation: Wadawurrung
Modern settlement: Ballarat
Trade good: Gold

Bidawal
Nation: Bidawal
Modern settlement: Mallacoota
Trade good: Fish

Braiakalung
Nation: Kurnai
Modern settlement: Licola
Trade good: Lumber

Brapkut
Nation: Jardwadjali
Modern settlement: Edenhope
Trade good: Wheat

Buthera Balug
Nation: Taungurung
Modern settlement: Seymour
Trade good: Fruit

Caluther
Nation: Taungurung
Modern settlement: Yea
Trade good: Lumber

Coram
Nation: Gulidjan
Modern settlement: Colac
Trade good: Wild game

Dandeyallum
Nation: Gunditjmara
Modern settlement: Portland
Trade good: Fish
Harbour level: 75

Djab Wurrung
Nation: Djab Wurrung
Modern settlement: Dunkeld
Trade good: Wheat

Djilang
Nation: Wadawurrung
Modern settlement: Geelong
Trade good: Fruit
Harbour level: 75

Echuca
Nation: Baraba Baraba
Modern settlement: Echuca
Trade good: Livestock

Euroa
Nation: Ngurelban
Modern settlement: Euroa
Trade good: Wild game

Jaitmatang
Nation: Jaitmatang
Modern settlement: Omeo
Trade good: Gold

Jardwadjali
Nation: Jardwadjali
Modern settlement: Horsham
Trade good: Fibre crops

Jari Jari
Nation: Jari Jari
Modern settlement: Piangil
Trade good: Wheat

Kannygoopna
Nation: Yorta Yorta
Modern settlement: Shepparton
Trade good: Fibre crops

Kauan
Nation: Kurnai
Modern settlement: Bairnsdale
Trade good: Wheat
Harbour level: 25

Koorakoorakup
Nation: Woiwurrung
Modern settlement: Sunbury
Trade good: Stone

Krambruk
Nation: Gadubanud
Modern settlement: Apollo Bay
Trade good: Fish
Harbour level: 25

Krauatungalung
Nation: Kurnai
Modern settlement: Orbost
Trade good: Wild game
Harbour level: 0

Latji Latji
Nation: Latji Latji
Modern settlement: Mildura
Trade good: Fruit

Liarga
Nation: Djadjawurrung
Modern settlement: Bendigo
Trade good: Gold

Matakupaat
Nation: Wemba Wemba
Modern settlement: Swan Hill
Trade good: Wild game

Munal
Nation: Djadjawurrung
Modern settlement: Maryborough
Trade good: Lumber

Narrm
Nation: Boonwurrung
Modern settlement: Melbourne
Trade good: Clay
Harbour level: 100

Nhill
Nation: Wergaia
Modern settlement: Nhill
Trade good: Fish

Nira Balug
Nation: Taungurung
Modern settlement: Heathcote
Trade good: Gold

Tallarambooroo
Nation: Djab Wurrung
Modern settlement: Ararat
Trade good: Gold

Tarlokine
Nation: Kurnai
Modern settlement: Traralgon
Trade good: Coal

Terang
Nation: Giraiwurrung
Modern settlement: Terang
Trade good: Lumber
Harbour level: 0

Wangaratta
Nation: Pallanganmiddang
Modern settlement: Wangaratta
Trade good: Wild game

Warracknabeal
Nation: Wergaia
Modern settlement: Warracknabeal
Trade good: Wild game

Warrnoobul
Nation: Gunditjmara
Modern settlement: Warrnambool
Trade good: Wild game
Harbour level: 0

Wirmburchep
Nation: Gunditjmara
Modern settlement: Birchip
Trade good: Wheat

Wodonga
Nation: Pallanganmiddang
Modern settlement: Wodonga
Trade good: Legumes

Wonthaggi
Nation: Boonwurrung
Modern settlement: Wonthaggi
Trade good: Lumber
Harbour level: 75

Wungariga
Nation: Djadjawurrung
Modern settlement: St Arnaud
Trade good: Wheat

Wuya Wuya
Nation: Wergaia
Modern settlement: Ouyen
Trade good: Wild game

Yarra
Nation: Woiwurrung
Modern settlement: Healesville
Trade good: Lumber

Yarram Yarram
Nation: Kurnai
Modern settlement: Yarram
Trade good: Lumber
Harbour level: 25

Yowengillum
Nation: Taungurung
Modern settlement: Mansfield
Trade good: Wild game

 

[Sulphurologist]

Seeing this it makes me think the Great Dividing Range needs a gratuitous amount of impassable terrain scattered through it. I cant argue with the geographic evidence presented here, but I think something needs to be done to capture just how much of a big deal it was for early explorers to find the passes through the mountains. As well as how much of an obstacle they present for infrastructure projects even today. Whether that is making an exception and stretching the definition of mountains just for Australia or if it means adding in lots of impassable terrain.

Based on this advice for example, the Blue Mountains will be treated as forested hills, the same terrain type as central Germany. Which when you compare the population and traversability of the two regions it just feels wrong. It's not like I've tried, but I struggle to believe anyone is dragging a battery of cannons through the Blue Mountains in any sort of great hurry.

View attachment 1236864

Why is there no impassable terrain around the great dividing range? It was one of the major early hurdle to colonization especially around the Blue mountains.

Thanks for the feedback, adjusted my post where I now also advocate to split out specific mountainous parts as impassables (like blue mountains)
Something like this? At least as a basis, with perhaps some connections in the narrower parts.

If you have any specific sources on where the exploration routes were stumped, please share! Wikipedia tells me this:

After British colonisation in 1788, the ranges were an obstacle to exploration and settlement by the British settlers. Although not high, parts of the highlands were very rugged. Crossing the Blue Mountains was particularly challenging due to the mistaken idea that the creeks should be followed rather than the ridges, and almost impenetrable, labyrinthine, sandstone mountains. The Blue Mountains actually lie to the east of the watershed that divides the Hawkesbury–Nepean system and the Murray–Darling system, the true Great Dividing Range. The watershed in this area lies to the west of Lithgow, passing near the locality of Mt Lambie and village of Capertee. There, as in some other places in New South Wales, the Great Divide is only a slight rise in the surrounding topography.

Knowing that local Aboriginal people had already established routes crossing the range and by making use of Aboriginal walking trails, a usable ridge-top route was finally discovered by Europeans directly westward from Sydney across the Blue Mountains to Bathurst by an expedition jointly led by Gregory Blaxland, William Lawson and William Charles Wentworth. Towns in the Blue Mountains were later named after each of these men. This was the start of the development of the agricultural districts of inland New South Wales. A road was built to Blaxland by convicts within six months. Easier routes to inland New South Wales were discovered towards Goulburn to the southwest, and westwards from Newcastle.

Subsequent explorations were made across and around the ranges by Allan Cunningham, John Oxley, Hamilton Hume, Paul Edmund Strzelecki, Ludwig Leichhardt and Thomas Mitchell. These explorers were mainly concerned with finding and appropriating good agricultural land.

 

[korandder]

What the white fellows would come to call the Blue Mountains was never impassable to the Aboriginal Australians who lived in the area.

New South Wales was founded as a penal colony so the authorities had an interest in promoting the idea that the Blue Mountains were impassable, at least at first. The first 'official' crossing by Europeans came in 1813, 25 years after the establishment of the colony, although some Europeans had crossed the mountains at least a decade before that. A road from Sydney to Bathurst followed a couple years late in 1815 which is roughly the route that would be later followed by the railway and modern highway.

In summery I do not think the Blue Mountains should be completely impassable in PC.

Main source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Mountains_(New_South_Wales)#History

 

[Deleted user]

What the white fellows would come to call the Blue Mountains was never impassable to the Aboriginal Australians who lived in the area.

New South Wales was founded as a penal colony so the authorities had an interest in promoting the idea that the Blue Mountains were impassable, at least at first. The first 'official' crossing by Europeans came in 1813, 25 years after the establishment of the colony, although some Europeans had crossed the mountains at least a decade before that. A road from Sydney to Bathurst followed a couple years late in 1815 which is roughly the route that would be later followed by the railway and modern highway.

In summery I do not think the Blue Mountains should be completely impassable in PC.

Main source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Mountains_(New_South_Wales)#History

I think with impassable terrain I was thinking more of the Snowies. Though the problem is that all of Australia was used by Aboriginal groups so It could be argued that there should be little impassable terrain in Australia, though I think some around the Great Dividing Range could make colonisation and gameplay more intresting. On reflection I would say the Blue Mountians would be better represented with a colonisation modifier.

 

[hellfirematt]

I think that impassible terrain should be thought of in terms of 'can a reasonably-sized army reasonably cross this place' rather than 'can any individual/small group reasonably cross this place', since this is where the game play looks to be most affected (army movement, road construction, and trade flows). There'd be much fewer impassible regions anywhere in the world if you hold to whether a single person can get from Point A to Point B. Because of this, I think that there should be impassible locations along the Great Dividing Range (especially between Melbourne and ~Newcastle), as well as in other places like the Grampians and the Mount Lofty Ranges. These were major impediments to exploration and colonisation and, had warfare as seen elsewhere in the world been a thing in Australia, I believe they'd have been something armies would have struggled around too.

 

[JimmyDD9000]

Something I think I'm finding the more I play around with coming up with suggestions of my own is that it's really hard to get the balance right between how Indigenous Australians saw and interacted with a given piece of land vs how Europeans did. Impassable terrain is probably the biggest culprit for that, where on one hand you have places where the Europeans took decades to figure a way through and then never bothered to do anything with the land but on the other hand the locals had been thriving there for tens of thousands of years.

I think I remember reading somewhere that Paradox wanted impassable terrain to represent places that era appropriate armies wouldn't have been able to march over, which makes me want to lean toward the European viewpoint for the map. However, this gets a bit awkward when you look at the big chunk of wasteland in the middle of the continent. It'd take some doing and you would need local guides, but I reckon you could march a few thousand men and their cannons into say Alice Springs without too much drama. So by that logic shouldn't the whole continent, minus some mountain peaks and really nasty deserts, be regular inhabited locations? Possibly not, given a lot of Central Australia wont get 'settled' during the game's timeframe, but where do you draw the line? Especially given all the alt history scenarios that are in play here, and that these lands were the setting of all sorts of trade and what have you during the game's timeframe.

The other problem is that given the size of locations in Australia, it's kinda hard for impassable terrain in mountain ranges to be both accurate and meaningful for gameplay. For example I grabbed a piece of the Alps and highlighted a handful of all the little army movements and what have you the player could choose to make, and then in the next pic I show the same piece of the Alps but with locations closer to Australia's sizes. You can see that even an Alps amount of impassable terrain doesnt add anything to gameplay in this case. But it does add to the rough terrain appearance of the thing, which isn't worth nothing.

Sorry I know I kind of waffling at this point, it's just something I've been thinking about. For my money, I would make places like the Blue Mountains along the Great Dividing Range mountain terrain with a smattering of purely aesthetic impassables on the various peaks. This is despite knowing they wouldn't qualify in the rest of the world. Ideally the locations would be smaller too but we all know why they aren't so it is what it is. This way you can show the mountains as inhabited while still capturing the obstacle they represented using the existing control propagation mechanics.

 

[korandder]

Something else I think a lot of people are missing about whether an army should be able to pass through a given terrain type is that PC will have a much more complicated logistics system - armies now require food - as well as no longer reinforcing while taking attrition.

 

[Tahami Tsunami]

Well thank you for being open to revisions, because I have a lot to say.

First of all, let me start off by saying I mean no ill-intent to you all. I just have gripes that ought to be addressed, beginning with playable nations

But going off of your list, we have three classifications for societies, and this will help me determine what is what.


Now, I'll begin by listing every nation that I believe could content for centralization and this is a long one.

Tonga:



Samoa:



Hawaiian Aliʻi:


Rapa Nui and Mangareva:



Pohnpei and Kosrae:


Kaimana/Sran:


With that, that covers the nations that I ought to think should be centralized at game start. I'll cover culture and religion, locations and provinces, and some other things later on, but I do hope you'll take this all into consideration.

- Yasha

I hadn't heard of rongorongo before and I'm immediately fascinated with the implications! I already felt that Rapa Nui should be a Settled Country and even more so now. Thanks for the info!

We have the Tinto Maps Extra for the entire Pacific Ocean on Friday so we'll see if any changes happen to have been implemented already or if we'll need to wait for a more dedicated feedback map.

 

[Linbot#6018]

Personally I am a proponent of impassable areas being "illustrative": it's okay to add one between two locations that people could theoretically travel through if it helps the game better recreate the historical flow of people and armies.

In this case, it seems to me that the Blue Mountains probably should be impassable. The benefit of representing how Aboriginal people used them is outweighed by the benefit of representing how Europeans didn't use them. Aboriginal people could travel across the Blue Mountains, but I can't imagine it would be their preferred route of travel, and if these societies were mobilising armies on the scale that the rest of the world was, I'm not sure if they would go through the mountains. And on the other hand, the impassability of this area was very important to the development of European settlement, and the game would feel that much more flat if they weren't satisfactorily represented. Of course, this is subjective on my part.

I suppose an alternative idea would be to make mountains really hard to colonise through, as in, the penalties to colonising mountain tiles exceed the penalties that apply to them in other situations. This would represent how mountains are a much more formidable obstacle if you don't already know how to cross them, but once known routes are established it becomes a lot more practical. The Appalachians are an example that seems to parallel the Blue Mountains in this respect.

 

[korandder]

My understanding is the impassibility of the Blue Mountains to colonization is overstated. For the first 20 or so years of the colony the British authorities were largely uninterested in expanding westwards and may have actively suppressed knowledge of routes around or over the Blue Mountains to prevent convicts from escaping westward. In 1813 when the British decided they did want more farmland to the west, they able to find a route relatively quickly west from Sydney and built a road west in a couple years. The town of Bathurst was founded at the western end of the road in 1815, only 27 years after British colonization of Australia began.

 

[Aenar212]

Would I be wrong in thinking O’ahu should have pearls?

 

[Zazzzzar]

Seeing this it makes me think the Great Dividing Range needs a gratuitous amount of impassable terrain scattered through it. I cant argue with the geographic evidence presented here, but I think something needs to be done to capture just how much of a big deal it was for early explorers to find the passes through the mountains. As well as how much of an obstacle they present for infrastructure projects even today. Whether that is making an exception and stretching the definition of mountains just for Australia or if it means adding in lots of impassable terrain.

Based on this advice for example, the Blue Mountains will be treated as forested hills, the same terrain type as central Germany. Which when you compare the population and traversability of the two regions it just feels wrong. It's not like I've tried, but I struggle to believe anyone is dragging a battery of cannons through the Blue Mountains in any sort of great hurry.

I'll be posting my review of the NSW Coastline soon but from my research @Sulphurologist 's map (which I love) would benefit from extending a lot of the impassables areas on the Great Dividing Range, especially in the Blue Mountains area. Looking at historical colonial expansion out of Sydney, access to the interior on the other side of the Blue Mountains was only really achieved by passing through the plains north and south - the Hunter and Illawara regions (Worimi and Tharawal on the map). Even looking at maps today there is only one road west of Penrith that connects Greater Sydney to the interior, and virtually no settlements today large enough to justify a location, let alone in 1337 - 1837.

At a minimum, the Blue Mountains should be impassable and extend north to Worimi, cutting off Dharug from the interior (the modern day Central Coast doesn't have access to the interior) and creating an isolated coastal pocket of Eora and Dharug.

In my post I'll have a greater explanation and some addition location suggestions, but I am surprised at the original lack of impassable terrain for Australia. Terrain shouldn't have to be truly mountainous to be impassable, a combination of plateaus, vegetation and elevation should be plenty to justify adding a lot more to many parts of Australia.

 

[zacz]

I'll be posting my review of the NSW Coastline soon but from my research @Sulphurologist 's map (which I love) would benefit from extending a lot of the impassables areas on the Great Dividing Range, especially in the Blue Mountains area. Looking at historical colonial expansion out of Sydney, access to the interior on the other side of the Blue Mountains was only really achieved by passing through the plains north and south - the Hunter and Illawara regions (Worimi and Tharawal on the map). Even looking at maps today there is only one road west of Penrith that connects Greater Sydney to the interior, and virtually no settlements today large enough to justify a location, let alone in 1337 - 1837.

At a minimum, the Blue Mountains should be impassable and extend north to Worimi, cutting off Dharug from the interior (the modern day Central Coast doesn't have access to the interior) and creating an isolated coastal pocket of Eora and Dharug.

In my post I'll have a greater explanation and some addition location suggestions, but I am surprised at the original lack of impassable terrain for Australia. Terrain shouldn't have to be truly mountainous to be impassable, a combination of plateaus, vegetation and elevation should be plenty to justify adding a lot more to many parts of Australia.

I agree that Australia in general does not seem to have had much thought or time put into it. The lack of impassable terrain in the Blue Mountains is one issue but things such as have jungle in the Nullarbor (who's name literally means no trees) as also very strange.

I'm from WA and the lack of natural harbors is also very odd. There are quite a few in WA. Perth is built where it is because of Fremantle Harbour and the state capital was almost Albany back when the colony was first formed because of the natural harbour there as well. There really should not be less harbours in Australia than there is in coastal Europe.

I also find it odd that the whole interior of Australia is wasteland. Sure there are definitely some Deserts present that should be wasteland but the majority is not. There should also be at least a few narrow pathways through central Australia like they have in Northern Africa and the Sahara. I would say travelling through the Sahara desert would be far more difficult than most of the non-desert inland areas of Australia.

 

[Otakian Otaku]

As someone who grew up in Polynesia this is quite disappointing. Hawai'i had very organized kingdoms, cycles of unification and fragmentation. O'ahu should absolutely be split into 3 provinces, reflecting the three kingdoms of O'ahu, the names are all a bit wrong on Hawai'i island, and why in the world is there a wasteland on Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. Lāhainā should have the long vowels on it, and omg the 'okina (') is not used in English when you use it as an English word. It's fine to write Hawai'i but do not write "Hawai'ian" or "O'ahuan" write "Hawaiian" and "Oahuan.
All of Polynesia should be speaking the same language right now, even today Maori and Hawaiian can be fairly easily understood from each other, but in 1337, these languages were much more similar. at the very least just have two languages (inner polynesian and outer polynesian).

Women often fought in combat, and served as advisers so keep that of note.

Hawaii had a very complex feudal system where there were monopolies on violence. Please at the very least make Hawai'i, Sāmoa and Tonga into proper states.

Sometime in the 1400s I think Sāmoa even invaded Hawai'i! and replaced all of it's nobility. Kamehameha I was descended from Sāmoans.

So whatever mechanic you want to implement, you have to make it very easy for Polynesians to reach each other and America in day one of the game! Since there is scientifically proven contact between Chile and East Polynesia (spread of sweet potato, language contact, and genetic contact).

Polynesia has three genders. Māhu in Hawai'i, Fafafine in Sāmoa. (Men who took a third role in society with both men and women natures, they were apothecaries and healers. They also had a sexual role, often helping couples. There's a story about 3 of them turning into stones that still stand in Waikīkī (Kapaemahu)

If you guys want to learn more about Hawaiian and Polynesian history, look up Adam Keawe on instagram, he posts a lot on Ancient Hawaiian and Polynesian history.

There was also a very crazy cannibalistic tyrannical king that everyone opposed who ruled all of O'ahu, possibly during this time. Might be a very fun thing to implement. (Source: Ancient O'ahu: Stories from Fornander and Thrum Paperback – May 20, 2016)

Hawai'i had very complex oral record keeping where there were essentially oral scribes who's job it was to memorize and keep knowledge.

Polynesia is an extremely complex full of history (albeit difficult to access) society. Please be the first to do a proper job and defeat the horrible horrible stereotypes people have of it. Extremely capable at seafaring, could cross entire oceans. Recently there was a crew from Honolulu that rebuilt these ancient ships, and circumnavigated the entire world only using traditional techniques (Hōkūleʻa).

Finally just wanted to say: Hawaiian society was very very organized. If you think Meiji Japan's modernization was quick, the Hawaiian monarchy was even quicker. In less than a century from simply encountering the Europeans, they had telephone lines built through Honolulu BEFORE ANY EUROPEAN COUNTRY. Railroads throughout all of Hawai'i when Russia was still struggling with it. First electrified Royal Palace/Head of State mansion (i'olani palace electrified before the white house!). It even gave inspiration to Japan for an asian co-prosperity sphere which was rejected by Japan at the time for being too ambitious (it was like the 1870s or 80s), and they had plans to form a pan-Polynesian kingdom after Tahiti (iirc) agreed to join in but France pressured them out of it. Hawai'i did actually annex a part of Micronesia too and some other islands around the Pacific. Hawai'i also had the worlds highest literacy rate! Higher than any european country! This was acccompolished even as a majority of the population was dying of tuberculosis.

So please to make Hawai'i be able to switch to western tech or whatever, and make it very very easy for them to westernize. And for the rest of Polynesia, do not make it so that they cannot easily sail across the ocean and conquer other polynesian kingdoms. This happened historically many times. Make Polynesia have OP exploration ideas.

Maori were even the first aware that in the south there was a massive arctic wasteland.
The main crops in pre-colonial Polynesia were Taro, Sweet Potato, Coconut.

Kava was an important beverage everywhere in Melanesia, Polynesia and a small part of Micronesia.

The livestock were Pig, Chicken, Dog.

if you need more information or would like me to suggest how to redraw the inner borders in O'ahu and how the naming should work please add me on my discord maxim777777. first time i've used paradox forums since i was in middle school over a decade ago.

 

[Otakian Otaku]

The population of Oceania seems to be massively underestimated. Hawai'i alone had around 500,000 people pre-colonially.

 

[Otakian Otaku]

Trade goods: Sandalwood was the first large export good alongside whaling. Later sugar cane (late 19th century) and much later (early 20th century) pineapples.

 

[Otakian Otaku]

And although Hawaii's populated absolutely collapsed due to tuberculosis (90% of the population died), it was quickly repopulated by Chinese and Japanese labor. (mainly cantonese, hokkein, hakka, southern japan (hiroshima, kobe), and Ryukyuan (especially a lot of ryukyuan).

Unrelated to Hawaii, please make the liturigical language of Japan, Korea, Yuan, Ryukyu, and Vietnam Classical Chinese.

 

[himyar445]

@Pavía Howdy! Apologies for the ping, but I don't know how actively viewed some of these older and more obscure threads are. I wanted to quickly second the suggestion that the Polynesian states are at this time organised enough to be considered states, if sort of behind the times, Vs societies of pops. Especially places like Tonga and Hawaii were at least as organised as Cahokia which y'all have as a proper state.

As for Australia, I feel like the difficulty there would be implementing the fact that as Europeans showed up, pre existing Aboriginal organisations crystalised and were influenced by Europeans into more organised proto states (see: Widajuri). Not to mention that the Top End's people definitely at least meet the requirements of being a society of pops. The Yolngu, thanks to their trade with the Makassans, were even arguably in the process of converting to Islam. This may be beyond the current capabilities, but especially for the Top End and northernmost Queensland, there should be a Situation or something like that highlighting the influence of Makassar and other outside influences and how it is very reasonable that, with surprisingly few changes, Europeans could have stumbled upon basically an extension of Nusantara into northern Australia with powerful statelets and just having them be "colonizable land" so to speak kinda is ahistorical.