This was almost entirely verbatim present in the original Colonization. Of course, it was traded off by the Spanish who had + bonuses to attacking native villages but, like I said earlier, conquering natives lost the player points.

Now, I was an avid player of the original Colonization, and I see where Fritz's concerns are coming from; it wasn't exactly humanity's finest hour. However, Colonization, like Civilization, provided penalties for playing the game in a morally offensive fashion. You actually LOSE points for razing enemy settlements. However, there is a chance of receiving a large amount of gold from capturing an advanced civilization's city, such as the Aztecs. So the issue isn't simply black and white, the player is given the opportunity to choose.

When I was playing the original Colonization, I often chose instead to cooperate with the native population. They could train your settlers to plant crops indigenous to the new world, and provided good trade partners. The Colonization aspect wasn't about genocide and cultural appropriation, the real focus on the game was more on preparing your colonies for the prospect of revolution and having to fight off the forces of the motherland.

Now, I understand Fritz's complaints, but I think at the very least before makes a "call to action" or anything silly like that he ought to at least play the original game and get an idea for what Sid Meier's Colonization is really about.

Yup, and the video's pretty lame too.

How is an ENGLISH speaking person supposed to pronounce UNI-QLO?