@MrKlorox said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@MrKlorox said:

@Ihmishylje said:

They were settlers, thus, by definition, not native to the region.

Yes, the Ocean is the only true indigenous region of life. Then again, it might not be even that. Hence my question: What doth life?

What does life mean? I'm not a biologist, so I don't feel qualified to answer that, but I believe it is the ability of cells to self-replicate. If you are asking about the origin of life, that's an even harder question.

It was a snarky rhetorical way of asking the origin of life, using a catchphrase from the cartoon in my avatar. I meant to imply that all land creatures were settlers, and perhaps even life as we know it. Your questioning of what indigenous truly meant sounded existential in nature, so I was taking it further in that direction.

I recognized the snark, but not the reference, since I'm not familiar with the cartoon. As a rule, though, I find it more amusing to reply to sarcasm literally.

I wasn't being existential, however, but addressing a linguistic issue. While I do find the rhetoric of "what does anything mean, how do we know we even exist" valid, it gets old really fast. I thought you were referring to that, but if you were in fact talking about the scientific origin of life, then yes, that is an interesting topic. I know very little of the theories on extra-terrestrial origins to life, other than that they do have scientific credibility (e.g. certain chemicals arriving here in the form of meteors, allowing for life begin). Then again, as our planet is ultimately formed from originally non-Earth substances, everything is ultimately extra-terrestrial.

But I believe this is too off topic for this thread. Maybe you should post a thread about it in off topic, I'm sure someone on here would be more qualified to discuss it.

@biospank said:

something I am woundering about and that is, if you are playing a native american duder does that not mean that these ubi-dudes really don't know anything about genetics. because from what I understand AC storyline/mythos is about Desmond Miles who goes into a machine which tracks his dna so he can experiance that timeperiode or somthing. So how the fuck could a man who has anciant ancestors in some islamic nation and then went to italy, which is more likely and then all of a sudden end up being a 100% native american. Am I the only one who does not understand that fringe logic?

It's possible that he is from the other side of the family. Usually 2 parents are needed to make children. Like a Native dude could make babies with a European woman that is a descendant of Ezio and Altair.

No videogame has ever really handled any issue particularly well or maturely, so I really doubt this will. As long as it's not offensive, it'll be a win.

@Jason_Bourne said:

@Mordukai said:

@Jason_Bourne said:

Ubisoft has a good tract record with the AC franchise. They're pretty historically accurate when it comes to real life events and people. They've done a fairly good job with portraying fairly and equally. I have faith in them to not make any one group, wether it be the british, aboriginal, or the colonialists, the super evil baddies.

No. They used real historical figures but that's where it ends.

Well everything about the Assassin order in AC1 was based on an actual clan of assassins. They killed political figures to shape things how they saw fit. They wore white robes with red sashes, and assassinated their targets in daylight, in public, so that everyone knew who was behind it. All of your targets in that game died or disappeared (in real life) during the time of the game.

In Assassins Creed 2 I specifically remember a scene where Ezio defends Lorenzo de Medici from assassins during a church gathering. In real life and the game, Lorenzo lives and his brother dies. Thats just one example off the top of my head.

In real life Lorenzo de' Medici rules his city with an iron fist and people had almost no political freedom. Not to mention all the shady business he made in order to make sure he'll be the one with the power. The incident you are talking about is known as the Pazzi Conspiracy and once that failed the Medici took their revenge to the extremes.

Assassin's Creed is no more then historical fiction.

@Mordukai said:

@Jason_Bourne said:

@Mordukai said:

@Jason_Bourne said:

Ubisoft has a good tract record with the AC franchise. They're pretty historically accurate when it comes to real life events and people. They've done a fairly good job with portraying fairly and equally. I have faith in them to not make any one group, wether it be the british, aboriginal, or the colonialists, the super evil baddies.

No. They used real historical figures but that's where it ends.

Well everything about the Assassin order in AC1 was based on an actual clan of assassins. They killed political figures to shape things how they saw fit. They wore white robes with red sashes, and assassinated their targets in daylight, in public, so that everyone knew who was behind it. All of your targets in that game died or disappeared (in real life) during the time of the game.

In Assassins Creed 2 I specifically remember a scene where Ezio defends Lorenzo de Medici from assassins during a church gathering. In real life and the game, Lorenzo lives and his brother dies. Thats just one example off the top of my head.

In real life Lorenzo de' Medici rules his city with an iron fist and people had almost no political freedom. Not to mention all the shady business he made in order to make sure he'll be the one with the power. The incident you are talking about is known as the Pazzi Conspiracy and once that failed the Medici took their revenge to the extremes.

Assassin's Creed is no more then historical fiction.

Doesn't make it any less awesome.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Mordukai said:

@Jason_Bourne said:

@Mordukai said:

@Jason_Bourne said:

Ubisoft has a good tract record with the AC franchise. They're pretty historically accurate when it comes to real life events and people. They've done a fairly good job with portraying fairly and equally. I have faith in them to not make any one group, wether it be the british, aboriginal, or the colonialists, the super evil baddies.

No. They used real historical figures but that's where it ends.

Well everything about the Assassin order in AC1 was based on an actual clan of assassins. They killed political figures to shape things how they saw fit. They wore white robes with red sashes, and assassinated their targets in daylight, in public, so that everyone knew who was behind it. All of your targets in that game died or disappeared (in real life) during the time of the game.

In Assassins Creed 2 I specifically remember a scene where Ezio defends Lorenzo de Medici from assassins during a church gathering. In real life and the game, Lorenzo lives and his brother dies. Thats just one example off the top of my head.

In real life Lorenzo de' Medici rules his city with an iron fist and people had almost no political freedom. Not to mention all the shady business he made in order to make sure he'll be the one with the power. The incident you are talking about is known as the Pazzi Conspiracy and once that failed the Medici took their revenge to the extremes.

Assassin's Creed is no more then historical fiction.

Doesn't make it any less awesome.

I should have made it clear that I just didn't appreciated how they made some people look in a positive light even though they were just as bad. In truth Ezio was helping out a family that were just as bad, or even worse, then the family he was seeking revenge against.

I see hats what say Native Pride, thus natives.  Or Natives, if you want.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@MrKlorox said:

@Gabriel said:

Most refer you call them by their tribe names or American Indian, or so I've read. I've never liked the term Native American because it's just as false as Indians.

They're the indigenous peoples of the Americas. How's that just as false as calling them by a name that's already used for another people?

What does indigenous even mean? There's no unversally agreed upon definition of the term. If what you mean by the term is "the various peoples and ethnic groups of various regions around the world that came to be enslaved or opressed by European nations between the 16th and 19th centuries" then yeah, fine. But it's not like the forefathers of the Native Americans that settled the region at the point of European contact were "indigenous" or "native" to the area.

The largely uncontested theory is that the the first nations peoples crossed a land bridge connecting prehistoric Asia and North America and settled this continent some 20,000 years ago. If that doesn't make my ancestors "Natives" or "Indigenous" then I don't know what the hell we're talking about here.

They were settlers, thus, by definition, not native to the region.

I hope you realize how ridiculous you sound right about now.

Not really. I'm not trying to take anything away from you (it's not like I could). Nor do I mean to be disrespectful, I'm sorry if I am.

Yes, the people who inhabited the Americas were natives to the region when the Europeans came. The Europeans were not, obviously. However, if you go far enough back in time, then the forefathers of the the Native Americans were not native to the area, much in the same way that the forefathers of current Europeans living in Europe were not native to the region, but moved there from somewhere else. According to current scientific theories, we all date back to Africa.

So, what do you suggest is the amount of time or number of generations after which a people can be considered native to a region, after their forefathers have settled it? Isn't everyone born in America native to America? Or do they need to have a lineage native to that region spanning thousands of years for them to be native? My point was, these terms are not universally accepted. There are various definitions, depending on context and intent.

I understand your point, but this issue is less about the hard facts and more to do with what I can only describe as intangibles. It's a matter that is both racially and socially charged. It's less about "are people not native after X generations," and more to do with how things have been handled since the famous European settlers (Columbus and his ilk weren't the first, this is fact). You need to keep in mind that my people (which I and my community, along with many other nations in Canada have taken to calling 'the first nations') have gone through a long and rather dreadful process of "assimilation" (I fucking hate that term). The thing is, so much of my people's culture, our traditions, heritage, was completely stripped away from us. Forced conversions to Christianity, Residential Schools and many other horror stories about the mistreatment, enslavement, and near-genocide of my people. This is just my belief, but I think the reason, or one of the reasons why the first nations have more or less kept a hold of the term "Native" is more in keeping with the idea that, despite how badly the Europeans settlers wanted to erase us from the face of this continent, we were here long before them, and we're still here now. It's a reminder, I suppose, if that's the right word. It doesn't feel strong enough, but I think it'll do.

Hope I cleared things up as to why this is not quite the binary/scientific issue you're arguing it to be.

I'm aware of your situation. I've taken courses on the topic in college. I know, even if I can't say I understand, the plight your people have been through. My people have also been an opressed nation at several points of our history, but it's harder for me to relate to that, since that is not the world I grew up in. The opression your people have been through is still fresh in your memory.

But as for the term, it is the fact that there is no agreed upon term to refer to the various peoples that inhabited the Americas before European colonization (while there were some European visits to the continent before Columbus, the did not have any quantifiable effect on the cultures or the land). Social and historical issues affect this argument, of course. There's always more than one point of view to look at things from. The point-of-view of peoples and tribes that didn't form states in the sense that, for example, many European and Asian nations did throughout written human history (as if written history was the only kind) is often overlooked. I recognize that. However, while you may consider "Native American" or "First Nations" to be the proper terms to use, a lot of American Indian activists would and do disagree with you.

@Mordukai said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Mordukai said:

@Jason_Bourne said:

@Mordukai said:

@Jason_Bourne said:

Ubisoft has a good tract record with the AC franchise. They're pretty historically accurate when it comes to real life events and people. They've done a fairly good job with portraying fairly and equally. I have faith in them to not make any one group, wether it be the british, aboriginal, or the colonialists, the super evil baddies.

No. They used real historical figures but that's where it ends.

Well everything about the Assassin order in AC1 was based on an actual clan of assassins. They killed political figures to shape things how they saw fit. They wore white robes with red sashes, and assassinated their targets in daylight, in public, so that everyone knew who was behind it. All of your targets in that game died or disappeared (in real life) during the time of the game.

In Assassins Creed 2 I specifically remember a scene where Ezio defends Lorenzo de Medici from assassins during a church gathering. In real life and the game, Lorenzo lives and his brother dies. Thats just one example off the top of my head.

In real life Lorenzo de' Medici rules his city with an iron fist and people had almost no political freedom. Not to mention all the shady business he made in order to make sure he'll be the one with the power. The incident you are talking about is known as the Pazzi Conspiracy and once that failed the Medici took their revenge to the extremes.

Assassin's Creed is no more then historical fiction.

Doesn't make it any less awesome.

I should have made it clear that I just didn't appreciated how they made some people look in a positive light even though they were just as bad. In truth Ezio was helping out a family that were just as bad, or even worse, then the family he was seeking revenge against.

I agree with you, don't get me wrong, but if they did portray Lorenzo de Medici as the cold hearted bastard that he was, and they indeed portrayed every historical character as truthfully as possible, I'm pretty sure the only decent person in the entire series would be Altair, Ezio, and this new protagonist, Connor. I was only observing that, despite the many liberties taken with historical figures, they still wrapped it all up in a pretty awesome game/series/story.

@Ihmishylje said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Ihmishylje said:

@MrKlorox said:

@Gabriel said:

Most refer you call them by their tribe names or American Indian, or so I've read. I've never liked the term Native American because it's just as false as Indians.

They're the indigenous peoples of the Americas. How's that just as false as calling them by a name that's already used for another people?

What does indigenous even mean? There's no unversally agreed upon definition of the term. If what you mean by the term is "the various peoples and ethnic groups of various regions around the world that came to be enslaved or opressed by European nations between the 16th and 19th centuries" then yeah, fine. But it's not like the forefathers of the Native Americans that settled the region at the point of European contact were "indigenous" or "native" to the area.

The largely uncontested theory is that the the first nations peoples crossed a land bridge connecting prehistoric Asia and North America and settled this continent some 20,000 years ago. If that doesn't make my ancestors "Natives" or "Indigenous" then I don't know what the hell we're talking about here.

They were settlers, thus, by definition, not native to the region.

I hope you realize how ridiculous you sound right about now.

Not really. I'm not trying to take anything away from you (it's not like I could). Nor do I mean to be disrespectful, I'm sorry if I am.

Yes, the people who inhabited the Americas were natives to the region when the Europeans came. The Europeans were not, obviously. However, if you go far enough back in time, then the forefathers of the the Native Americans were not native to the area, much in the same way that the forefathers of current Europeans living in Europe were not native to the region, but moved there from somewhere else. According to current scientific theories, we all date back to Africa.

So, what do you suggest is the amount of time or number of generations after which a people can be considered native to a region, after their forefathers have settled it? Isn't everyone born in America native to America? Or do they need to have a lineage native to that region spanning thousands of years for them to be native? My point was, these terms are not universally accepted. There are various definitions, depending on context and intent.

I understand your point, but this issue is less about the hard facts and more to do with what I can only describe as intangibles. It's a matter that is both racially and socially charged. It's less about "are people not native after X generations," and more to do with how things have been handled since the famous European settlers (Columbus and his ilk weren't the first, this is fact). You need to keep in mind that my people (which I and my community, along with many other nations in Canada have taken to calling 'the first nations') have gone through a long and rather dreadful process of "assimilation" (I fucking hate that term). The thing is, so much of my people's culture, our traditions, heritage, was completely stripped away from us. Forced conversions to Christianity, Residential Schools and many other horror stories about the mistreatment, enslavement, and near-genocide of my people. This is just my belief, but I think the reason, or one of the reasons why the first nations have more or less kept a hold of the term "Native" is more in keeping with the idea that, despite how badly the Europeans settlers wanted to erase us from the face of this continent, we were here long before them, and we're still here now. It's a reminder, I suppose, if that's the right word. It doesn't feel strong enough, but I think it'll do.

Hope I cleared things up as to why this is not quite the binary/scientific issue you're arguing it to be.

I'm aware of your situation. I've taken courses on the topic in college. I know, even if I can't say I understand, the plight your people have been through. My people have also been an opressed nation at several points of our history, but it's harder for me to relate to that, since that is not the world I grew up in. The opression your people have been through is still fresh in your memory.

But as for the term, it is the fact that there is no agreed upon term to refer to the various peoples that inhabited the Americas before European colonization (while there were some European visits to the continent before Columbus, the did not have any quantifiable effect on the cultures or the land). Social and historical issues affect this argument, of course. There's always more than one point of view to look at things from. The point-of-view of peoples and tribes that didn't form states in the sense that, for example, many European and Asian nations did throughout written human history (as if written history was the only kind) is often overlooked. I recognize that. However, while you may consider "Native American" or "First Nations" to be the proper terms to use, a lot of American Indian activists would and do disagree with you.

I know they do, and it is sad to see that we as a people cannot come to a consensus on the issue. I was only raising the point as to why I believe many of my people do embrace the term, while I am aware that many do not.

It seems we've reached an understanding. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you, good sir.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Mordukai said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Mordukai said:

@Jason_Bourne said:

@Mordukai said:

@Jason_Bourne said:

Ubisoft has a good tract record with the AC franchise. They're pretty historically accurate when it comes to real life events and people. They've done a fairly good job with portraying fairly and equally. I have faith in them to not make any one group, wether it be the british, aboriginal, or the colonialists, the super evil baddies.

No. They used real historical figures but that's where it ends.

Well everything about the Assassin order in AC1 was based on an actual clan of assassins. They killed political figures to shape things how they saw fit. They wore white robes with red sashes, and assassinated their targets in daylight, in public, so that everyone knew who was behind it. All of your targets in that game died or disappeared (in real life) during the time of the game.

In Assassins Creed 2 I specifically remember a scene where Ezio defends Lorenzo de Medici from assassins during a church gathering. In real life and the game, Lorenzo lives and his brother dies. Thats just one example off the top of my head.

In real life Lorenzo de' Medici rules his city with an iron fist and people had almost no political freedom. Not to mention all the shady business he made in order to make sure he'll be the one with the power. The incident you are talking about is known as the Pazzi Conspiracy and once that failed the Medici took their revenge to the extremes.

Assassin's Creed is no more then historical fiction.

Doesn't make it any less awesome.

I should have made it clear that I just didn't appreciated how they made some people look in a positive light even though they were just as bad. In truth Ezio was helping out a family that were just as bad, or even worse, then the family he was seeking revenge against.

I agree with you, don't get me wrong, but if they did portray Lorenzo de Medici as the cold hearted bastard that he was, and they indeed portrayed every historical character as truthfully as possible, I'm pretty sure the only decent person in the entire series would be Altair, Ezio, and this new protagonist, Connor. I was only observing that, despite the many liberties taken with historical figures, they still wrapped it all up in a pretty awesome game/series/story.

Too bad the bugs in brotherhood prevent me from playing it and the treatment I got from Ubisoft and from Best buy just soured my opinion towards this series. Maybe I will pick this one up though as I have to admit that while I really don't care for Brotherhood and Revelation this one has my interest. I am extremely fascinated by american history.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Mordukai said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Mordukai said:

@Jason_Bourne said:

@Mordukai said:

@Jason_Bourne said:

Ubisoft has a good tract record with the AC franchise. They're pretty historically accurate when it comes to real life events and people. They've done a fairly good job with portraying fairly and equally. I have faith in them to not make any one group, wether it be the british, aboriginal, or the colonialists, the super evil baddies.

No. They used real historical figures but that's where it ends.

Well everything about the Assassin order in AC1 was based on an actual clan of assassins. They killed political figures to shape things how they saw fit. They wore white robes with red sashes, and assassinated their targets in daylight, in public, so that everyone knew who was behind it. All of your targets in that game died or disappeared (in real life) during the time of the game.

In Assassins Creed 2 I specifically remember a scene where Ezio defends Lorenzo de Medici from assassins during a church gathering. In real life and the game, Lorenzo lives and his brother dies. Thats just one example off the top of my head.

In real life Lorenzo de' Medici rules his city with an iron fist and people had almost no political freedom. Not to mention all the shady business he made in order to make sure he'll be the one with the power. The incident you are talking about is known as the Pazzi Conspiracy and once that failed the Medici took their revenge to the extremes.

Assassin's Creed is no more then historical fiction.

Doesn't make it any less awesome.

I should have made it clear that I just didn't appreciated how they made some people look in a positive light even though they were just as bad. In truth Ezio was helping out a family that were just as bad, or even worse, then the family he was seeking revenge against.

I agree with you, don't get me wrong, but if they did portray Lorenzo de Medici as the cold hearted bastard that he was, and they indeed portrayed every historical character as truthfully as possible, I'm pretty sure the only decent person in the entire series would be Altair, Ezio, and this new protagonist, Connor. I was only observing that, despite the many liberties taken with historical figures, they still wrapped it all up in a pretty awesome game/series/story.

Don't forget the part where, not one but, TWO of his sons arose to the Papacy (probably through buying it because Leo was only a Deacon when he was elected.). Leo X and Clement VII. Leo X was a very charitable leader who seemed to take care of the lowest of his people. Clement VII was...not so much. He was a pretty weak ruler.

The real question is what native american language is he going to speak in between all the english

@Oldirtybearon said:

I know they do, and it is sad to see that we as a people cannot come to a consensus on the issue. I was only raising the point as to why I believe many of my people do embrace the term, while I am aware that many do not.

It seems we've reached an understanding. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you, good sir.

I don't think it's that surprising. People are persons and personalities, not just representatives of their people. Which is what I hope to get from AC3 as well (way to bring the discussion back on topic, eh?). It's fairly easy to end up with a racist interpretation if you merely attempt to write a character that is a representative of a people, however accurate, as opposed to just writing a character that is a human being first, whose actions and personality is informed by the culture he or she was brought up in, but is more than a representative of a people (just like we all are).

And yeah, the pleasure was all mine.

@HarlequinRiot said:

No videogame has ever really handled any issue particularly well or maturely, so I really doubt this will.

This. And the AC series has always played fast and loose with historical facts, because much of the "history" referenced in the games is poorly documented, so they've no choice.

I take offence at the use of the term "Native": other continents besides North America have native people(s).

Never mind my old post! Anyways, I have faith in Ubi to give it their best effort.

I thought your blog was really good!

I'm really excited about this! The industry has needed more diversity in games for too long. This game has a chance to really change the diversity of games media.

I am sure that Ubisoft knows about the powder keg they are straddling with this new direction; just look at the comments here. People are gonna be vehemently vocal about what they think about this game; good or bad.

I am optomistic about this decision, but people never agree on anything so, to some, Ubisoft has already made the wrong decision. As long as Ubisoft is comfortable with this game at the end of the day, they have made the right decision.

P.S. This also makes me excited to find out what kind of protagonist GTA 5 is gonna use.

@mrcool11: Brilliant post. I'm a Native myself of the Ojibwe tribe located in Ontario, Canada. We (as a race) don't get much, if any representation.

Uh...TUROK!?!?? That guy was badass.

There really isn't a good way to represent any culture in any form of media because someone will inevitably be upset with how it was done. So, Ubisoft is sort of caught in a catch-22. I also don't think they'll care.

Turok was pretty cool. I will admit. I'm about 12.5 percent Makah. I don't necessarily look Indian, but I am. It was weird going to Neah Bay and hearing my grandmother refer to Caucasians (i.e me) as "white folks", and "white people", as if I wasn't one. I guess it's OK though. To tell you the truth, the Conner character doesn't really look Indian. We haven't seen or heard much of him yet though.

Indians come from India, and they are still around. Using "Indian" to refer to the aboriginal people of North America was incorrect 500 years ago and still is. It drives me insane seeing the word still used this way.

@biospank said:

something I am woundering about and that is, if you are playing a native american duder does that not mean that these ubi-dudes really don't know anything about genetics. because from what I understand AC storyline/mythos is about Desmond Miles who goes into a machine which tracks his dna so he can experiance that timeperiode or somthing. So how the fuck could a man who has anciant ancestors in some islamic nation and then went to italy, which is more likely and then all of a sudden end up being a 100% native american. Am I the only one who does not understand that fringe logic?

Shhhhhhhhhhh.