The game is inconsistent. Everyone else has their real name and we already know who we’re playing as in this scenario.
1 Like
Yeah, they should just name him.
1 Like
I cannot believe the developers wanted to brag about being respectful to native americans, only to put Andrew Jackson in the game as a hero, the one responsible for one of the most serious catastrophes in native american history. An advocate for what he called the ‘‘Indian removal’’, that resulted in what we know today as the trail of tears.
But no, the firepit is where the offense is at…
2 Likes
This game, and MS by association, is an embarrassment. I own the first and second DEs and did have this one in my Steam wishlist, but I’ve removed it and won’t be buying it. I very rarely post here anyway but this will be my last post. This kind of utter nonsense and falsifying/erasing of history has to stop.
3 Likes
Dude wtf? Andrew Jackson is nowhere near Stalin or Hitler. He’s an American president and war hero, and we still honor him on our 20 dollar bill. If the devs are going to pretend that Andrew Jackson is some Hitler who needs to be hidden, that’s far more offensive than absolutely anything about the original depiction of the Indian civs.
4 Likes
hahahahahahaha thats rich… He plunged the USA into a recession due to its obsession with paying the foreign debt. True, he found the Democratic Party, but then it was a Party more aligned with the rights of southern landowners (and their slaves) than anything else.
He created the idea of modern campaigning i give him that…
Money lending schemes as you call it is credit, and any student of econ 101 can explain to you that any modern (and i mean modern since 1700) economy was only able to grow due to banking and credit
I understand the removal of the firepit, and it goes to your optics of “the natives were a backward people that had these dancing rituals”.
I also think it is important to put Jackson (as well as several other historical figures who werent good persons), because it is important for people to know them, and what they did. However in a game design point of view puting Jackson as a hero defeats the purpose of telling how devastating he was to several communities.
And Heyredin Barbarossa wasn’t?
The man that led a huge campaign of slavery, plunder and rape across Southern Europe, specially all the small towns down the coastline?
He and his brother Oruç even get to be “Heroes” in the very first Historical Battle.
1 Like
cencoring history is bad.
Look at games like HoI 4, where when you play as Grrmany your ruler is Hitler, is this bad? No. He was the ruler of Germany, to remove that is historically inaccurate for a game based on history and acts like nothing bad happend in that time.
Not only the good things must be shown in history, also the bad ones.
1 Like
The same with the russians and the tartars…
However it is different as those communities do from southern europe do not discriminate the Tunísians based on their former piracy. But in the usa the minorities are still discriminated based on some of the same arguments that Jackson used. So the óptics are different.
And they are different due to the fact that the pirates were not discriminating their targets by any metric (not even religious), but jackson was in its actions…
It is also the difference between an imperialist war (were you cannot say who the ‘good guys’ were, such as WWI) or a war with a racial objective (such as WWII). Again, it is an óptics issue
He was a successful US general in the War of 1812, before becoming President and instituting his indian removal policies. Speaking of which, he’s hardly the first one or the last one to do it. It might have been the worst though, given the promises that were made to these tribes they would keep their lands if they “civilized”, meaning, if they build houses&mannors like the white and hired slaves to plant cotton.
This is wrong, they spcifically targetted white christians, specially the women, and specially blondes, which could fetch a better price in the North African slave markets.
It was full blown race and religion based discrimination, the difference is that whites inevitably put a stop to it, because the muslims never would.
The Ottomans (Barbarossa’s backers) executed several race-based campaigns of terror and imperial expansion against europeans.
It is EXACTLY the same scenario, the Americas were not special, nor was anything done there that was not being done almost everywhere else on the globe.
1 Like
Source? And how is exactly terrorism equal to the promotion slavery and the elimination of native tribes?
Again, apart from the armenian genocide and their early XX century treatment of minorities (which from your comment are not the issue here) where are those campaigns of terror and imperial expansion agains europeans?
Because apart from the siyuations mentioned above the ottomans had actually a better system of integrating minorities than SEVERAL Christian European countries like Portugal Spain or the Polish Lituânia… (Christian, jewish and gypsie minorities from the balcans for example were better treated during the ottoman ocupation than afterwards). Therefore, how is it the same?
It is general knowledge. The onlty reason why the Ottomans did not completely exterminate the europeans, is because they could not, or they would have gladly done so.
And stop asking for “Source?”, it is childish, and general History is available everywhere to research, do your own research.
There has never been, or will ever be, a system that treats minorities weell, or does any kind of actual integration at any level.
That is a moot point. Once a minoritym, you are playing at a disadvantage, PERMANENTLY.
4 Likes
I ask for Source because he who states a fact must prove it. You cannot say “its general knowledge” when you are clearly expressing an opinion. And you are expressing an opinion when you say childish things like “The ottomans would have exterminated the europeans”. And those statements are not only false (they kinda owned the balcans for 500 years and Last time i looked there, the europeans were not exterminated) but empower a false dicotomy of muslim/arab world vs western europe. But not only that, it disregards their actual genocide in Arménia.
True they had slavery, but most of europe had it as WELL, so that is beyond the point, the Pope even allowed it after Portugal asked to start enslaving (it was kinda forbidden until 1400).
This was my Last post on this reply and i Will not continue to humour it, as i think it is against the community continuing a side thread of a discussion in which one side is confounding fact with opinion.
FACT Andrew Jackson, albeit an “american hero” had a medieval mentality that most of its peers did not (just look at Lincoln, Bolivar, San Martin, Santander or even the napoleon) most were anti slavery.
But it is not an opinion, it is well known and documented.
I am portuguese, we know damn well how it was under the Moors, and the eatern europeans know damn well how it was under the Ottomans.
They id in Europe, what Europe id to Africa and the Americas, except they were less successful because the technological level was much more even, specially in military terms.
Bolivar brought back Black Slavery after the Spanish had outlawed it, and installed caudillismo (lifelong presidency) in South America.
Unfortunately the history denying devs are probably going to nuke your comments.
1 Like
You saying ww2 was a racial war kind of proves your ignorance.
1 Like
WW2 wasnt a war about race. It was first a war for the Germans to reclaim their lost lands and German lands. Then it was to create an massive empire to give Germans space to live (lebensraum). Allong this was the disgusting racial and religious attrocities commited by them, which yes, made them the bad guys obviously, but the war itself wasnt about it.
The Balkans werent just the same when the Ottomans left. A lot of places were now dominated with Turkish people and Muslims, when before it wasnt.
Next to that the most common practice of slavery even in AoE III present is… The jannisarry. Catholic families were forced to give their first born child so it could be brain washed into the islam and military, forced to fight for the empire.
This is the whole point about this. Every civilization has very dark pages in their history, but to just ignore the history in general is bad. You need to be able to learn from it. Not to mention you can still admire someones actions or military genius withouth supporting someones policies or other actions. Which is why often Germanies army of ww2 is still seen as a genius military machine people.
3 Likes
True. There’s a very big difference between “historically accurate” and “politically correct”.
4 Likes