To begin, let me point out that there is an essay in the stats file of the game about the setting. It does not address race, but it does address both queer marriage and the role of women in society.
My point being, I assert that this claim is false:
An entire alternate universe was created, yes, but it’s not one-sided between its treatment of women, queerness, and race. The perception in this thread of a significant privileging (“modernization”) of gender and queerness in the game over race is, I would argue, erroneous. I understand that it may seem like gay marriage or a woman being the head of a railroad might be a big deal, but the rewriting of history to allow a black person to not only show up at white society’s social events and walk through the front door, but also to marry a white person, is a much bigger change. (Even the orthography of “Negro” instead of “negro” is an example of this stretching; that didn’t start happening until the 1910s and 20s.)
Despite these changes, there are still power imbalances in this game. Women, blacks, Irish, and queer folks are all at different levels of power in this society. In my opinion, the game does an admirable job of balancing power fantasy—and the stretching of history to make that inclusionary—with the acknowledgement of those systemic power differentials.
As for the specific use of the word “Negro,” it appears seven times in the game. Two of them in a parallel moment of the first chapter when dealing with the player’s education. Two of them occur in the context of Lessing and the discussion of the discrimination they’ve faced in being/becoming a journalist. The other three are the player calling out racist subtext in other characters’ statements. It’s not used casually, and it’s certainly never used against the player.
Now, I’m sensitive to the argument that those first two instances—regarding the player’s education—are the closest thing to the term being used against the player. This is an expression of the power differentials of the world: only a certain segment of the world, the Radical Republicans, would embrace the education of blacks. But in this context, the Radical Republicans are calling the black folks what they wanted to be called. If anything, the difficulty in these two instances is thus not in the use of the term—because it’s the term that is being used to respect the subject—but instead what it tells us about the world: that there is a significant portion of the world that would not consent to equal education for blacks. So, in conclusion, I don’t think the use of the word here is inappropriate in the context of it being used against the player.
Lastly, there is the question of whether a modern black reader would take offense at the use of the term. And, to be perfectly frank, I think all us white folks should shut up about it and let some black folks talk.
(And, since I’ve started this post, @flocktrops has been kind enough to offer their opinion, which I read as broadly positive.)