is yasuke a real samurai?

[CelestialJudas]

wiki says he is, but some say hes a retainer

[𝔰𝔦𝔤𝔦𝔫𝔞 ✝]

Originally posted by kcnue:

Originally posted by CiggyPop ✝:

Exactly, Oda wasn’t about sticking to tradition if it got in the way of what worked. He cared more about results and was open to new ideas. That’s why he allowed open arms trade and even tolerated Christians for a time, he saw it as a way to strengthen his power and build alliances.

that's not called "progressive", and using that term is disingenuous at best

that's called strategy, diplomacy, trade. pretty much what everyone else did to a certain extent in those times.

While it was strategy and diplomacy, he embraced things others didn’t. He pushed boundaries to get ahead, and that’s why calling him progressive makes sense.

[𝔰𝔦𝔤𝔦𝔫𝔞 ✝]

Originally posted by kcnue:

Originally posted by CiggyPop ✝:

While it was strategy and diplomacy, he embraced things others didn’t. He pushed boundaries to get ahead, and that’s why calling him progressive makes sense.

sure buddy, oda nobunaga was progressive.... the lengths some people go to

His actions speak for themselves. If that’s not progressive for the era, what is?

[𝔰𝔦𝔤𝔦𝔫𝔞 ✝]

Originally posted by kcnue:

Originally posted by CiggyPop ✝:

His actions speak for themselves. If that’s not progressive for the era, what is?

what is? well the answer is really simple: nothing

literally nothing in that whole era (anywhere in the world), or the ones before it, was progressive in the sense that we use and understand that cringe-a$$ term today! whatever oda did was not for the purposes of "progress", but for the purposes of keeping japan strong! did u catch that? not for the purposes of "changing" but for the purposes of "keeping"!

What Oda did was both strategy and diplomacy, and he was also shaping Japan in his image while breaking norms to build something new. That’s what progress looks like. This has nothing to do with wokeness, LGBTQ or whatever you're on about.

[𝔰𝔦𝔤𝔦𝔫𝔞 ✝]

Originally posted by kcnue:

Originally posted by CiggyPop ✝:

What Oda did was both strategy and diplomacy, and he was also shaping Japan in his image while breaking norms to build something new. That’s what progress looks like.

we both know full well what you;re trying to do here, with that term specifically! what oda did has nothing to do with how this game portrays it's narrative! stop wasting both of our time and go do some pushups! you called oda a "he" after all...

Not trying to push any agenda here. Oda’s actions were about challenging tradition to build strength, and that’s what I was highlighting.

[𝔰𝔦𝔤𝔦𝔫𝔞 ✝]

Originally posted by kcnue:

Originally posted by CiggyPop ✝:

Not trying to push any agenda here. Oda’s actions were about challenging tradition to build strength, and that’s what I was highlighting.

hey don't talk to me until u done with those pushups! i won't be allowing such bigotry here! sorry!

lol

[Eric]

Originally posted by CiggyPop ✝:

Originally posted by Eric:

Samurais were allowed to have their family name during the era with no exception.
Now then, what is Yasuke's family name?

Oda Nobunaga didn’t care about traditional rules. He was progressive and focused on ability and loyalty over formalities, which is probably why Yasuke didn’t get a family name. The same goes for Jan Joosten, the Dutchman known as Yayosu, who became a samurai without following all the usual customs.

I kinda agree with the part Oda Nobunaga didn't care about traditional rules but talking about family names he was rather positive about giving it to his samurais. Like, Koretou for Akechi Mitsuhide, Korezumi for Niwa Nagahide, Harata for Ban Naomasa, Betsuki for Yanada Hiromasa. Then why didn't Yasuke make it to get his family name? I'd like to say because Nobunaga didn't care Yasuke that much either but to be fair the fact is, nobody knows. Because only a few pages of references to him remain even if you scour all the history books since he had accomplished nothing that would be worth keeping on record.
Also Yayosu has nothing to do with this. I want people to distinguish the definition of samurai during Azuchi-Momoyama era and Edo era at least when they discuss about this kind of topic: out history.

[pope henry viii]

If you mean 'samurai' as the nominalisation of the verb ’saburafu', being something conceptually similar to 'paid servant' (in contrast to an unpaid servant, i.e., a slave) - maybe; the historical evidence about him being paid is shaky, the use of the word in that manner is not well-attested for the 16th century, and this rather tortured explanation is generally rolled out as a bad-faith argument by those who know that this is not what Anglophone listeners understand 'samurai' to mean.

If you mean it as in a member of the chiefly hereditary feudal warrior caste that people imagine wielding a sword and wearing armour (id est, the way he is depicted in this game's marketing material) - by no means. He wasn't a warrior of any kind. He appears to have been treated as something between a clown and a pet, which was no doubt degrading and humiliating, though perhaps an improvement over the servile labour to which he would previously have been accustomed (and, for that matter, over what might be speculated to have been his life with a tribe in Africa, if he was not born a slave).

[Ekcelent]

I know Mr. Yasuke portrayed as he is in AC: Shadows is a big shock and is bound to be a subject of debate, but whoever was crying in the comments earlier something along the lines of: "Ubisoft using actual living person from that time period and completely changing what he did in real life is dishonest" is just.... Incredible.

This must be coming from a person who has not played A SINGLE Assassins Creed game! Over the span of 10 or whatever AC games over the past 15 years, there has been SO MANY historical figures which were portrayed saying and doing things which we have ZERO historical account of - and that's fine, this is a form of art, it is called artistic liberty.

Excuse me, dear sirs, but I don't think we have any relevant data regarding a PRECURSOR RACE, living on this planet before us, a race, which was highly technologically advanced, which created us, humans, in their image as a dumb work force and then went extinct due to a global cataclysm caused by a Coronal Mass Ejection and a human/Isu-hybrid rebellion and other factors...

Or do we?

As much as I personally would like to believe that and it does make a lot of sense (to me at least), I cannot, in any way confirm it ever happened. Therefore, I cannot go on a crusade, defending why Yasuke COULD NOT be as he is portrayed in the most recent AC game?

What happened to us? I am a very conservative person with traditional values and ideals and despise the woke mind virus as much as the next guy, but I think people need to step back and really reflect upon themselves. I also do not like many things in recent AC games, narrative-wise, for example, there are so many women in leadership positions in Valhalla that it's a bit silly and hardly believable, but who am I to judge? Just my personal opinion, it is art after all, let them live their fantasies. But back to the point...

If the Order of The Ancients/Templars do exist in some fashion in real life, similar to what is described in AC games, this division and hatred is exactly what they would want. To keep us separated and never focus on the true enemy - the powerful, influential people in the shadows shaping our world. Such group could control us and keep us in perpetual state of war between each other.

A group with similar characteristics and apparent behavior does exist in real life, Blackrock/Vanguard, to point out the elephant in the room for example. It's a good place to start. I have no doubt they have their fingers in Ubisoft's decision making in recent years. Are they really "Templars"? Do they want to build "The New World Order"? Could be. Could be not. We don't have sufficient evidence.

Personally, I think Ubisoft is in a civil war with itself. There is so much talent, so much love for the lore, for history, for accurate representations of our past, for our ideals, for values, for art, for the narrative, in all AC games, but nonetheless plagued by occasional agenda pushing. This has been slowly increasing in recent years.

But does all of this warrant so much hate against a single name, or what he portrays? We did not even play the game yet, we know nothing of this characters' motivation, values, behavior, goals... People are simply so quick to judge based upon their predetermined stances. Will this stop them doing such risky endeavors in the future? The answer is no. Best you can do is ignore it, or create something better. Or get a job at Ubisoft and change it from within. Those are your limited options. Your shouting at the clouds is not gonna help you fix the world, nor will it put a crack in their plans.

I will repeat myself again - if such a group does exist, they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Final note:
Remember. NO PRE-ORDERS. Buy at a discount, few months/years down the line. Then judge. Let them learn their lesson. Stand on your words with actions.