e he uses reaffirms this. He describes the Europeans as "the European invaders" "the settlers brutally forced the Indians of their land and slaughtered the women and children in the process". Much can be taken from these two short sentences. The narrator uses emotive language such as 'invaders' and "slaughtered" to depict the Europeans as almost blood-lusting barbarians. The narrators words also show that only one side is being considered and the reasons for the Europeans settlement has only been put down to an invasion to brutally force the Indians away even if it was for completely unrelated reason (perhaps their own survival).
             The narrator also claims that all of America belonged to the Indians by being assertive in saying 'their land'. This is assuming that ALL the land belonged to the Indians. The narrator sounds credible as he sounds old and mature which would lure the viewer into trusting him more and believe he knows what he is talking about. The narrators selection of detail and language used show a bias in the message put across onto the viewer and this bias as used in other documentaries such as 'Bowling for Columbine' has a profound effect on how the viewer receives the documentary.
             The other narrator used is a Native American Indian. This narrator is used in a completely different role. His calm and soothing voice masks an infinite sadness. His voiceover is used to explain the Indian culture, the pain and suffering that was caused by the settlers. The audience has almost a primary source to the atrocities which occurred and this is intended to strike a cord with the viewer to take the Indians side. Also the way he speaks and the
             ...