I find it offensive because not only is that not true, to say so suggests that slavery was/is justifiable - an inevitable act borne of need, which is culturally insensitive, historically inaccurate, and highly offensive. It essentially provides an economical justification that affirms slavery which, while an economical institution, was also a socio-cultural and political institution - one which preceded the Civil War. The statement doesn't acknowledge that, which I find short-sighted. I'm fine with playing a game that uses historical rdferences, but if it's going to do so, then I think those references should be historically accurate and culturally sensitive. For example, this same line of quests keeps using veiled and loaded language that characterizes Native Americans as limited and slow. We now that's not true, so how does it enhance the game or the game experience to reference them as such? All it does is providec a platform for the ignorant propaganda from that time. I don't deny that the perspective did exist, but since we know it's damaging and inaccurate, why not at least present a more comprehensive perspective? That storyline needs to be updated and, in addition to including a more historically sensitive approach to writing, there needs to be a more historically accurate approach if nothing else.
How do you know that he's silent on reality? Using ignorant assumptions to support a flawed argument, when all you have to do is simply say you disagree. Well played.
I can appreciate that. Thank for doing so without sarcasm and aggression.
Keep in mind that the narrative is coming from the perspective of a fictional character, not Inno's opinion on slavery. I think that they are trying to appropriately demonstrate the political viewpoint of someone from that time, they're not condoning it.
I don't know what quest specifically you're referencing, but native Americans were primitive compared to locals, and unsurprisingly, didn't know English.
the Native Americans were actually the locals. I'm referring to repeated references of them as "inferior" - as a people, their technology, etc. There were multiple characterizations of them as inferior. Delayed technological advances and inferiority are not the same thing.
If you don't want to read them at all, and my expectations differ from yours, why do you care that I care? I do want to read the quests, and their content matters to me. I'm not trying to convince you that your standards are sub-par. So why do you care about my standards at all? If doesn't have to be a dissertation to be more accurate or sensitive, and I know that from lived experience since I've written two dissertations and have two doctorates. One sentence of clarity would have been enough.
Their technology was inferior, colonials would have won if it came to war.
Why do you care about your standards so much that you feel like defending them against a non-existent threat?
The reminder of this being a character's perspective is a good one - thank you for that, as it helps me have a little more emotional distance. However, I don't want the writers to act like it didn't hapoen. I asked for a more comprehensive view, not for blinders. That view could simply come from another "character" who offers up a counterview in the form of another one-liner.
then why call people inferior instead of just talking about the technology? And since many white men died while trying to figure out how to survive in North America, and more would have died with help from the First Nations , why not acknowledge that there were "inferiorities" on both sides which out both at disadvantages? To just call an entire people inferior is wrong.