Uhm ... You treat me as if called you names but all I did was to say that I would like (or do) disagree with your reading of themes involved. I did not say that you were "wrong", I merely pointed out the flaws in the case you brought.
I may have been flippant in my last statement, and for that I'd like to apologize.
As for nitpicking/pedantry: Is it from time to point out that in order for the grammar to make sense it has to be "giants' backs" or "its shoulders" in the first sentence of your thesis
As for "themes vs story":
Themes do have to expressed in the text/transcript. While the most expressed theme might not be the dominant one (e.g. when you highlight something through absence) you at least are able to present evidence of it.
As refuting/debunking your thesis:
I never said I wanted to refute your thesis. I said that I disagree with it. And I pointed out that the case you brought verbatim was flawed.
Disagreement does not require me to refute any of it; I can let it stand well and secure in the confidence that I have the a pattern of evidence backing me up, which I consider to be more coherent and logical sound.
As for "did I actually disagree":
Unlike what you state, I actually did point out why I disagree:
Homeworld 2, despite declaring is the Hiigarans and Kara S'Jet the protagonists, is not about them outside the Prologue (Missions 1-2) and the Epilogue (Final Mission + Ending Cutscene) which I consider to be framing. Their actions do not drive to the plot and their are not imbued with much agency, as the plot does not really rely on them doing anything but is driven by the Bentusi, the Oracle, the Movers, the Keeper and of course Maakan and the Vagyr entering the stage they stand on.
As such it is hard to claim that the story of the Homeworld 2 is expressly about them. While a connection through the Hiigarans rising to new power, understanding and prominence exists, it is a very different rise than in Homeworld 1: This rise is not by their actions or designs. This essential difference makes it thematically similar but not the same.
For example: The plot development of Homeworld 1 may have been kickstarted by the bombing the prison world but the plans to leave the planet for Hiigara were already in place well before that, as evidenced by the Cyrotrays being present in the Mission 1 already.
While Homeworld 2 opens with the launch of the Pride of Hiigara, we are informed in sequence first of Maakan's ambition to conquer Hiigara, than of the construction of the mothership - implying that the latter was predicated on the former.
(I would like to point out now, that of course the protagonist of a story does not have to be source of all agency in that story. The entire genre of tragedy is rooted in its protagonist(s) "suffering" either the agency of others or the inadequacy of their own agency.)
This is why in my opinion
your assertion of a thematic connection in the story proper
does not hold much water.*
*= Just to avoid a future misunderstanding: "if an opinion or a statement does not hold water, it can be shown to be wrong", so for a statement to metaphorical not hold much water
does not mean that it is completely wrong or false. I am merely expressing my disagreement. If you bring a more detailed case, I would be open to reconsider.