review of an absurdly apologetic reviewer
It's simplistic and definitely racist
the people are portrayed as quaintly primitive
Firstly, the story could take place in the year 1000 for all you know, when the people were even more primitive than they were in 1914. Secondly, in 1914, how advanced do you think these people were?! Were they creating factories, manufacturing bricks, buying cars? Or were they actually living in huts and using canoes to travel? I assume the latter.
the women are completely subservient to the men
And the women of this society were always outspoken and independent? Why can't I picture that for some reason? Common sense, perhaps?
and the main occupation of the tribes involves war and cutting off the heads of enemies.
And you know this NOT to be true? My research on the Kwakwaka'wakw shows that warring, owning of slaves, and capturing of heads were all extremely important in this culture. Looks like some revisionists have been at work. Even though the Kwakwaka'wakw have historically collected the heads of their enemies, there is absolutely NO mention of this practice whatsoever (at least the importance of slavery is briefly mentioned) in their wikipedia entry.
To summarize, just because you dislike the historical status quo, doesn't mean it never happened. It also means, when viewing works of fiction based on this historical status quo, the work itself, while not living up to current societal standards or your ideal (whatever that may be), does not have to explain, defend, or apologize for itself. share