PDA

View Full Version : should Connor confront Washington on his slaves



Radman500
08-08-2012, 03:40 AM
i think since connor and george will become close friends/allies....should connor at some point confront george on him being a slaveowner...... that would be awsome

WolfTemplar94
08-08-2012, 03:49 AM
It would create confilct, which is always interesting in a story, so yeah, for sure. I don't want Connor to be too 21st century though. That seems to be the one problem Ubisoft have.

rileypoole1234
08-08-2012, 05:27 AM
I think Ubi confirmed the presence of slaves in the game. It'll at least be mentioned I think. By 1778 Washington stopped selling slaves because he didn't want to break up the families. Here's an excerpt from a letter I found from George Washington to a friend:

"I never mean ... to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this Country may be abolished by slow, sure and imperceptible degrees."

Here's another excerpt:

"there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see some plan adopted for the abolition of slavery."

So yeah, I think it'll be at least mentioned. During AC3, Washington definitely isn't worrying about abolishing slavery.

Poodle_of_Doom
08-08-2012, 05:37 AM
He wanted it to be abolished by slow, imperceptible degrees huh? Sounds like someone who really wants it gone,... almost like he wishes us to think that it's been abolished?

raytrek79
08-08-2012, 06:01 AM
Slavery was not seen as an evil back then in the sense we see it now. Even if Lincoln, the guy who basically stopped slavery, would be seen as politically incorrect, even racist by todays standards. To no one was it as big a deal as it is now, even slaves were not as annimant about its abolishion as we are now, unless they were abused by their owners. But as in the original AC, one of the targets says (paraphrased) "yes, you would see it as slavery as ignorant as you are, they were begars, prostitutes, addicts and lepers and I freed them from that" the claim that the subjects actually had a better life than they did before is not really a horrendous act, and I am sure that not a one of Washingtons slaves was treated as bad as they say slaves are treated.
Basically slavery just had a name change any way, employment, we just all get paid now and can spend and enjoy the friuts of that labour in a more liberated manner.

raytrek79
08-08-2012, 06:34 AM
Just sayn, slavery could be deemed an opportunity to survive. Even today people are irresponsible in the way they spend their money and time, to the point of destroying themselves and harming those around them. In history people even sold themselves into slavery because it was the only option to them. Not saying that everyone should be slaves but if the law properly protected slaves and gave them opportunities in education for them to be able to not only gain their freedom but live with it responsibly enough to keep that freedom, that has potential. To think that slaves would have food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education and certain approved rewards, protected from abuses such as physical, mental and sexual assaults and the opportunity to become free and stay free, man that sounds like a better life than many people have.

LoyalACFan
08-08-2012, 09:44 AM
Connor should definitely call him out on it with a barb or two, but it shouldn't be a major plot point.

FrankieSatt
08-08-2012, 01:34 PM
How about this, leave all this crap out of the game. This game isn't about Slavery and it will do nothing but cause problems because people can't talk intelligently about it.

TheHumanTowel
08-08-2012, 01:45 PM
It would create confilct, which is always interesting in a story, so yeah, for sure. I don't want Connor to be too 21st century though. That seems to be the one problem Ubisoft have.
Yeah slavery was pretty commonplace and not really seen as immoral back then and Connor's a product of that time. I don't he'd like slavery because he's a member of a minority group but he certainly wouldn't be up in arms about it like people would be today. The assassins' morals should always be a little ahead of the curve but not too much to make them anachronistic.

Like somone else here said I think Connor should only make one or two snide comments about Washington's slavery as an aside but not have it be a major plot point.

LightRey
08-08-2012, 02:16 PM
Discuss? Sure. Confront? Maybe. It's easy to tell someone of influence to give up something that was considered completely normal at the time, something that had been considered completely normal for millennia. It's easy for us to judge those that had slaves, but the fact of the matter is that there were economic, political and cultural factors standing in the way of doing what we consider now to be the "right" decision. I can easily imagine in a few hundred years people looking back at us with disgust when it comes to our treatment of animals, yet I think we can all see how it's practically impossible for us to just suddenly all do the "right" thing concerning them.

Big changes like that have to take time, preparation and careful consideration.

RatonhnhakeFan
08-08-2012, 03:43 PM
Some of the posts in this thread o_o

Anyway, yes he should call him out on it. Assassins and Templars have been very 21st century from the beginning. They're the connection for modern audience which the game is made for.

Chocoburger
08-08-2012, 06:47 PM
I too am curious as to how such a touchy subject will be handled. I personally don't mind if they have slavery shown, as long as it is a realistic representation of the times the game takes place in. But something tells me that Ubisoft will avoid the subject to avoid the drama and complaints. Guess we'll see! Maybe Connor helps a few slaves in his journey.

kriegerdesgottes
08-08-2012, 07:26 PM
I think it might be something cool to throw in mostly because Washington was actually the only President to ask for the freedom of all of his slaves in his will. Jefferson only released 5 of them.

TinyTemplar
08-08-2012, 07:32 PM
no doubt Ubisoft will include this moment into the game. After all Connor is a native american and he'll certainly have his own view on the matter

Slayer_WTF
08-08-2012, 07:34 PM
Connor has his reasons for being a friend in Washington, and I think we should overlook this type of question.

De Filosoof
08-08-2012, 08:02 PM
Definitely.


First of all, Connor is half native American and raised by natives so he probably has a totally different view on life(and he's an assassin so...yeah, pretty obvious)
This is a very good excuse to make him confront Washington about the subject.
I hope he will make some very strong and relevant points considering slavery, i'd love that.


Btw, Ezio was pretty open-minded about homosexuality so... (Da Vinci DLC).

RatonhnhakeFan
08-08-2012, 09:11 PM
Definitely.


First of all, Connor is half native American and raised by natives so he probably has a totally different view on life(and he's an assassin so...yeah, pretty obvious)
This is a very good excuse to make him confront Washington about the subject.
I hope he will make some very strong and relevant points considering slavery, i'd love that.


Btw, Ezio was pretty open-minded about homosexuality so... (Da Vinci DLC).And the stuff Altair wrote in his Codex was very modern too (like his views on women and religion) so it appeared to me from the beginning that assassins were always supposed to be morally ahead of their times. Ubisoft would create accurate historical portrayals of the past times and societies with all their flaws, but would comment on it from modern perspective via the assassins

greatgeek
08-09-2012, 01:06 AM
Yeah slavery was pretty commonplace and not really seen as immoral back then and Connor's a product of that time. I don't he'd like slavery because he's a member of a minority group but he certainly wouldn't be up in arms about it like people would be today.

There were many colonists that thought slavery was immoral, evil, even.

De Filosoof
08-09-2012, 01:16 AM
And the stuff Altair wrote in his Codex was very modern too (like his views on women and religion) so it appeared to me from the beginning that assassins were always supposed to be morally ahead of their times. Ubisoft would create accurate historical portrayals of the past times and societies with all their flaws, but would comment on it from modern perspective via the assassins

Exactly :).

Slayer_WTF
08-09-2012, 09:06 AM
And the stuff Altair wrote in his Codex was very modern too (like his views on women and religion) so it appeared to me from the beginning that assassins were always supposed to be morally ahead of their times. Ubisoft would create accurate historical portrayals of the past times and societies with all their flaws, but would comment on it from modern perspective via the assassins

Hmm, I think that this is not to be modern, but to have an open mind. Altair was influenced by the ideas of Al Mualim and Order, but after becoming the new mentor, has "broadened the horizon."

raytrek79
08-16-2012, 01:47 PM
Some of the posts in this thread o_o

You mean me? Don't get me wrong, I would not condone slavery, just saying that AC is littered with things that can be seen as bad but people, namely bad guys, in it have some kind of justification that does make a little sense, otherwise they would not believe in their cause so whole heartedly. Slavery was an issue much like gay marriage is an issue now, there were justifications on both sides of the arguement and both sides made a lot of sense, or at least seemed to.
I still like what Lucy said, and I paraphrase "The Templars want the same thing as us, just their methods are...wrong, so wrong" a lot of things are not so cut and dry immoral, the ends are usually noble, it is only the means that are questionable.

RatonhnhakeFan
08-16-2012, 02:07 PM
You mean me? Don't get me wrong, I would not condone slavery, just saying that AC is littered with things that can be seen as bad but people, namely bad guys, in it have some kind of justification that does make a little sense, otherwise they would not believe in their cause so whole heartedly. Slavery was an issue much like gay marriage is an issue now, there were justifications on both sides of the arguement and both sides made a lot of sense, or at least seemed to.
I still like what Lucy said, and I paraphrase "The Templars want the same thing as us, just their methods are...wrong, so wrong" a lot of things are not so cut and dry immoral, the ends are usually noble, it is only the means that are questionable.
Just because someone has an explanation for his beliefs and trully believes in something doesn't make it right. Slavery, just as gay marriage are simple issues and both steam from the same place. A part of society believes that another part of society is inferior just because they were born with different skin color or sexuality.

And methods do matter. There's a big difference between free will and launching a satellite to control all humans on Earth except for few privileged Templars.

raytrek79
08-16-2012, 02:09 PM
Just because someone has an explanation for his beliefs and trully believes in something doesn't make it right. Slavery, just as gay marriage are simple issues and both steam from the same place. A part of society believes that another part of society is inferior just because they were born with different skin color or sexuality.

And methods do matter. There's a big difference between free will and launching a satellite to control all humans on Earth except for few privileged Templars.

That's what I'm saying.

Templars want peace through control, Assasins want peace through free-will. Peace through free-will is something Templars see as too difficult or not possible at all, Assasins just see control as plain wrong. Is free-will really superior? How do you know? We have not really experienced it. I have a saying "The very first thing freedom is used for is to control others"
It is like anarchy, such a way will only last as long as it takes for lords to rise and seize control.
But we are all controlled to some degree, I don't even think society would be possible without certain controls and without society we have feudalism, another type of control.

Edmund Burke said "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites." and "Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without." (the "controlling power within" is your own moral inclination as the "controlling power without" is the laws of society)

De Filosoof
08-16-2012, 04:03 PM
And methods do matter. There's a big difference between free will and launching a satellite to control all humans on Earth except for few privileged Templars.

That's what i was trying to tell all the time on these forums but everybody keeps thinking that the templars are noble and honest, just that "their way to achieve peace is different blablabla"
F*** that s***, really.

Like you said, sending a satellite into space to brainwash and control everybody. Can somebody please explain what's so noble about that?

De Filosoof
08-16-2012, 04:13 PM
That's what I'm saying.

Templars want peace through control, Assasins want peace through free-will. Peace through free-will is something Templars see as too difficult or not possible at all, Assasins just see control as plain wrong. Is free-will really superior? How do you know? We have not really experienced it. I have a saying "The very first thing freedom is used for is to control others"
It is like anarchy, such a way will only last as long as it takes for lords to rise and seize control.
But we are all controlled to some degree, I don't even think society would be possible without certain controls and without society we have feudalism, another type of control.

Edmund Burke said "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites." and "Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without." (the "controlling power within" is your own moral inclination as the "controlling power without" is the laws of society)

You're thinking from within capitalism. I have to agree with you that as long as people stay wilingly ignorant and as long as there's money and/or inequality, There will never be true peace and we will never get rid of corruption. Open your mind my friend and you'll see there are many alternatives to live without authoritarian control.

In-game the templars created capitalism so it's kinda their own fault.

RatonhnhakeFan
08-16-2012, 04:26 PM
Is free-will really superior? How do you know? We have not really experienced it.Yes, you are experiencing it right now. You can post on forums and express your views. Wanna see control? Go to North Korea, good luck expressing your views the way you do now. Or even China. You will write your little post and then censors will delete it if they won't like it


I have a saying "The very first thing freedom is used for is to control others"
It is like anarchy, such a way will only last as long as it takes for lords to rise and seize control.
But we are all controlled to some degree, I don't even think society would be possible without certain controls and without society we have feudalism, another type of control.

Edmund Burke said "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites." and "Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without." (the "controlling power within" is your own moral inclination as the "controlling power without" is the laws of society)But this has nothing to do with a plan to make people a walking plants like Abstergo plans to. There's absolutely zero civil liberty in it or freedom. You're trying to equate liberty and control just because liberty ain't perfect. It will never be just as all humans will never be perfect. But it is better than complete control.

This reminds me of people who are obsessively against capitalism. Yeah, it ain't perfect. But countless history examples show that this economic system is what made world population make the biggest jump in quality of life ever.

De Filosoof
08-16-2012, 07:07 PM
This reminds me of people who are obsessively against capitalism. Yeah, it ain't perfect. But countless history examples show that this economic system is what made world population make the biggest jump in quality of life ever.

Yeah, we made a huge technological jump because of the industrial revolution and capitalism but that system is now about to collapse/end just like the system before capitalism.
That's part of human progress and evoluion.
Systems come and systems go.
We do now have the potential and technology to create a better world for all of humanity, not just a small group.

Right now capitalism is blocking progress instead of stimulating progress.

We already have the technology and knowledge to create free energy and to make a world of abundance but because it's not profitable, it will not happen(remember Nikola Tesla's wardenclyffe tower?), or atleast not on a big scale. When there's something in abundance it won't be very profitable, just like you can't sell the grass in your garden because it's everywhere around us. 1 basic rule of capitalism. We're destroying the world and ourselves right now because of how this system operates. Look at factory farming for example or at huge corrupt banks and corporations (just to name a few things). They don't get punished because of the sick stuff they do, they get rewarded with LOTS of money and societal respect because of their status.
There are still many ****ty jobs that can be replaced with automated machines immediately so people wouldn't have to do that brainless stuff anymore but that would destroy jobs thus it's not good for this system. This system creates a lot of paradoxes because what's good financially isn't necessarily good for human progress, and that's the problem.
Humans are full of potential but there are a lot of people with stupid jobs because they need money to survive and to feed their family, what a waste.


I did a lot of research so this probably won't make any sense to you but that doesn't matter. It's very complex stuff and i can't explain it properly like this.
Maybe you'll figure it out yourself one day!! :).

Maybe this short video will help you understand:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_YxNG3nUUk

I reccomend watching all three zeitgeist movies. There's some pretty interesting information in all 3 of them.