McClurken Wiki

<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php</b> on line <b>195</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>571</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>585</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>578</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>603</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>553</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>186</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>203</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>196</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>212</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>175</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php</b> on line <b>135</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php</b> on line <b>234</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php</b> on line <b>292</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php</b> on line <b>755</b><br />
<br />
<b>Warning</b>:  preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php</b> on line <b>907</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php</b> on line <b>908</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>627</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>629</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>630</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>631</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>633</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>634</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php</b> on line <b>402</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/skins/common/feed.css?303"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Wholcomb86</id>
		<title>McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Wholcomb86"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Wholcomb86"/>
		<updated>2026-09-18T22:20:52Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.22.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-12-03T04:21:56Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* = 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went.  The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein&amp;#039;s work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP.  At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate.  We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went.  With all Woodstein&amp;#039;s investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP&amp;#039;s workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were &amp;quot;confirming&amp;quot; information from sources.  They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn&amp;#039;t want to talk.  My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman.  Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P.  Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he &amp;quot;would not have a problem&amp;quot; with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It&amp;#039;s largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes.  Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very glad that the -Gate phenomenon was referenced in lecture. That is something that seriously drives me nuts. Who decides what gets -Gate status anyway? Why is there a Troopergate and Cigargate, but other political scandals get off the -Gate hook, so to speak? Why wasn&amp;#039;t John Edwards&amp;#039; cheating scandal called Infidelity-gate, or Dick Cheney&amp;#039;s hunting incident a few years back Shot-in-the-face-gate? Is there some unwritten journalist code that determines this naming process? And just last year this practice made its way into the sports world with the Spygate scandal that tainted the Patriots&amp;#039; undefeated regular season. What happens if there is a scandal involving an American spy in the future? Does this theoretical incident then get dubbed Spygate II, or does it get a less cool sounding -Gate name, I mean shouldn&amp;#039;t real life spies get first dibs on the -Gate name? What happens when there is a political scandal on the Golden Gate Bridge, is it then called Golden Gate-Gate or is that too stupid? What if there is a scandal literally involving a gate? Does this bother anyone else? Is it sad that I can muster more vitriol over something trivial like a scandal naming process rather than the scandal that supplied the name in the first place? Can I fit any more questions into a wiki-post?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Niiiice. Well said.  And no, I don&amp;#039;t think it&amp;#039;s sad that you&amp;#039;ve mustered this much vitriol about a trivial aspect. I do the same thing sometimes.  However, that may mean I&amp;#039;m just a sad case, too. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of sad that the name combo has degenerated in much the same way as the -Gate phenomenon. Where Woodstein was a combo of two young journalists on the rise, now we are subjected to Bennifer, Branjelina and others. I blame Nixon.-Bryan Mull&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-12-03T04:01:01Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went.  The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein&amp;#039;s work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP.  At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate.  We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went.  With all Woodstein&amp;#039;s investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP&amp;#039;s workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were &amp;quot;confirming&amp;quot; information from sources.  They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn&amp;#039;t want to talk.  My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman.  Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P.  Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he &amp;quot;would not have a problem&amp;quot; with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It&amp;#039;s largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes.  Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-12-03T03:44:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went.  The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were &amp;quot;confirming&amp;quot; information from sources.  They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn&amp;#039;t want to talk.  My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman.  Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P.  Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he &amp;quot;would not have a problem&amp;quot; with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It&amp;#039;s largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes.  Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-12-03T03:37:49Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* = 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went.  The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It&amp;#039;s largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-19T21:27:55Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets.  They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village.  He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit.  Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron&amp;#039;s character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don&amp;#039;t have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, &amp;quot;Cutbacks.  The government&amp;#039;s just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys.&amp;quot; According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray.  You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war.  Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics.  You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government.  I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were.  I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit.  That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army&amp;#039;s flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The difference in the two 4th of July parades accurately displays the differing views of the American people. When the WWII veterans returned home, hundreds of people were lining the streets, cheering, clapping, and holding American flags. When Ron is being driven through the parade the people lining the streets are jeering and giving him the figure. It shows the very different reactions of the American people to these two wars. One war they supported (WWII), the other they did not (Vietnam). Also, during the first parade when the fireworks/gun shots(?) are fired the veteran is startled and flinches and young Ron takes notice of that; this is exactly what happens to Ron during the parade, he flinches when he hears that gun shot sound. These are two examples of the PTSD the soldiers experienced that affected them in their everyday life.  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This film was the first that hammered home for me how bad it is when the government isn&amp;#039;t prepared to take care of wounded veterans.  The scenes in the VA hospital make it easy to understand the difficulties associated with a lack of funding, and what it was like for veterans in those hospitals.  I guess watching Forest Gump too many times left me thinking VA hospitals were all ping pong and ice cream. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the scene in the bar where Kovic and the WWII Marine get into a scuffle was powerful in that it showed the disconnect between generations and between the views on the different wars. I know that guys like my grandfather who served in the Marines in the Pacific during WWII and in Korea often had little sympathy for perceived &amp;quot;whiners&amp;quot; from Vietnam. Because of the different circumstances surrounding the two wars and the vast differences between the generations, it is no wonder there were such tensions among the veterans.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree on the movie doing a great job with showing how Ron’s view changes towards the war.  It shows how society around him affected his thoughts on how the war had a negative impact on America.   The film also gave examples of what was happening in America, the Kent State shootings (Donna briefly stated about) and the brutal beatings by police officers at the war rallies. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Ron&amp;#039;s Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they&amp;#039;re just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people.  The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control.  It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC.  Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn&amp;#039;t have been. -Whitney Holcomb &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Really? I thought the reason they were shocked is that the Americans honestly didn&amp;#039;t think there were civilians in the area. The justification for shooting was that the lieutenant saw rifles in the huts, only later did the Americans find out that the VC had used civilians as &amp;quot;Cover&amp;quot;. Also I thought the confusion and uncertainty between unarmed civilians and VC was one of the main frustrations American soldiers had fighting in Vietnam. I thought this scene was accurate. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpreted the backwards hanging of the flag as a sign of symbolic protest. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You have a good point about the shooting, Jason.  I guess I missed seeing the rifles part of that.  But about the flag, wasn&amp;#039;t Ron at that point still very patriotic? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision.  - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awe come on, Elle.  You didn&amp;#039;t like the American Hero story?  It&amp;#039;s not shown on the silver screen nearly enough.  That&amp;#039;s not to say it wasn&amp;#039;t an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will&amp;#039;s family that he was responsible for their son&amp;#039;s murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe this is a function of there just not being a whole lot of combat scenes but I was wondering where all the black soldiers were? There was the guy that saved Kovic and carried him to safety, but I don&amp;#039;t recall seeing any other black soldiers, which is strange seeing as how something like 60 percent of black males were drafted. Though I guess the protest scenes showed a bit more diversity. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don’t know much about the book the movie is based off of, but I felt the whole scene in Mexico was inaccurate. If I’m wrong please correct me, but this was something America did not talk about if it were true.  Was Mexico a popular retreat place for the Vets, and was it exactly like how it was portrayed in the film? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not sure, but in the scene Ron and a friend of his were talking about the war and the friend stated “This is a wealthy man’s war.”  What does he mean by that?  It was not a war for the common soldier because most soldiers who fought were from the lower class. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpreted this quote about &amp;quot;the wealthy man&amp;#039;s war&amp;quot; as an acknowledgment of the notion that politicians in Washington &amp;quot;play war&amp;quot;, using lower class boys as their playing pieces. In other words, the &amp;quot;fatcats&amp;quot; in Washington make war, but let others do their fightin&amp;#039;. Take a listen to Creedence Clearwater Revival&amp;#039;s Fortunate Son. Here is a lyric that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up every time,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Some folks are born made to wave the flag,&lt;br /&gt;
Ooh, they&amp;#039;re red, white and blue.&lt;br /&gt;
And when the band plays hail to the chief,&lt;br /&gt;
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.&lt;br /&gt;
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,&amp;quot;- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Tim O&amp;#039;Brian&amp;#039;s book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;A Rumor of War,&amp;quot; the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally.  How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it.  They answered Kennedy&amp;#039;s call of &amp;quot;ask what you can do for your country&amp;quot; and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII.  You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy&amp;#039;s address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So this wasn&amp;#039;t a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very pleased to see O&amp;#039;Brien&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Things They Carried&amp;#039;&amp;#039; selected as a reading for this film. I would highly suggest that anyone who hasn&amp;#039;t read O&amp;#039;Brien to pick up &amp;#039;&amp;#039;TTTC&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Going After Cacciato&amp;#039;&amp;#039; as both are extremely powerful books in understanding the psyche of the Vietnam soldier. I found that of any text (be it film, novel, textbook), The Things They Carried was the most formative for me in understanding the impact of Vietnam on a generation (which is notable seeing as how it is a work of fiction). In regards to this film and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;TTTC&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I found that Kovic&amp;#039;s despair upon returning and most people not really caring about the war was reflected well in O&amp;#039;Brien&amp;#039;s book. Though not in our excerpt, there is a story of a Vietnam vet who returns home and basically drives around his town every night with nothing to do, trying to figure out where he fits in with the world he has returned home to find. In my opinion it is the most heartbreaking part of the book in that all this person wants is basically the occasional pat on the back for a job well done, not a fancy parade, but he never really gets it. Also the issue of returning home to girls that have since moved on in their lives is reflected in the book, as with Kovic and his childhood sweetheart with whom he can no longer really communicate.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Rumor of War&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I thought Caputo’s discussion of nostalgia offered a new perspective on why the Vietnam conflict was so complicated for Vietnam veterans. Whether veterans supported or protested the war, their time in Vietnam was the most formative experience of their lives. Caputo said his objections to Vietnam were informed by a completely different set of circumstances than that of the homefront protesters- war. “Because I had fought in it, it was not an abstract issue, but a deeply emotional experience, the most significant thing that had happened to me.” I think this is the very sentiment that everyone ought to keep in mind when discussing the Vietnam conflict (and really any hot-button issue). Regardless of where people fall on the issue of Vietnam, everyone’s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;opinion&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is valid. Too often one side accuses the other side of “not getting it” or that “they’re wrong”, but this accusation misses the point. With an issue as personal and emotional as war, there is no right or wrong, just a poignant internalization of a provocative reality.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers, including Ron Kovic really thought they were going to beat Communists in Vietnam in the beginning. They were disillusioned. The Cold War was coming to an end around the time this movie was made. The Tienanmen Square Massacre happened on July 4, 1989 and Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. It seems like with the release of this film, the filmmakers were making a comment on Communism or the war on it.- Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, &amp;quot;Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted.&amp;quot; Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn&amp;#039;t looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn&amp;#039;t even meant to be Oliver Stone&amp;#039;s baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn&amp;#039;t that enough? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was the use of the blinking club lights meant to convey a sense of unreality in Ronnie&amp;#039;s life after his return home? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That makes sense for the &amp;quot;Vietnam Section&amp;quot; I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie?  It didn&amp;#039;t really seem to make sense and I don&amp;#039;t know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that.  Something just doesn&amp;#039;t seem to add up.  But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kelly&amp;#039;s response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone&amp;#039;s, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &amp;#039;s relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is &amp;quot;filmography&amp;quot; as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic&amp;#039;s story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039; validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did Tom Cruise&amp;#039;s hair change so drastically? I&amp;#039;m assuming it&amp;#039;s suppose to show how much he aged while at war, but I have to say it made me somewhat uncomfortable. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought most of Ron&amp;#039;s childhood scenes were hyper-dramatized and nearly silly.  &amp;quot;I had a dream last night Ron.  You were talking in front of a whole bunch of people...&amp;quot;?  There are the dangers of basing a film on an autobiography.  We are all the heroes of our own lives. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times.  I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic.  Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else&amp;#039;s, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, &amp;quot;war,&amp;quot; Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t really care for this.  It wasn&amp;#039;t very entertaining for me and it&amp;#039;s not something I would ever watch again.  I didn&amp;#039;t have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he&amp;#039;d actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he&amp;#039;d been gone.  We see kid Ron watching JFK&amp;#039;s speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967.  Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in &amp;#039;46 do things come together.  I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war &amp;gt; Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end.  And, I know that&amp;#039;s how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn&amp;#039;t handle it.  Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic.  And I think abbreviating Kovic&amp;#039;s life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal.  As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents?  I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now.  They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that Stone showed the differing views between Ron and Donna. He a Vet and she a war-protester. It reminded me of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Forrest Gump&amp;#039;&amp;#039; although &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Forrest Gump&amp;#039;&amp;#039; came 8 years after &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the 4th of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I&amp;#039;m glad Stone mentioned the protest at Kent State because not only did this horrible event have a big impact on the American public but also college campuses were hubs for protests that held very powerful stances during the Vietnam era. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was expecting something really bad, and really inaccurate from Oliver Stone. He surprised me, I liked the film... a lot. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Cash&amp;#039;s comment, I cannot resist quoting Robert E. Lee: observing the slaughter of the Battle of Fredericksburg from his vantage point on Telegraph Hill, he said to Gen. Longstreet, &amp;quot;It is well that war is so terrible - we should grow too fond of it.&amp;quot;  It still rings true.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-19T21:19:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets.  They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village.  He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit.  Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron&amp;#039;s character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don&amp;#039;t have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, &amp;quot;Cutbacks.  The government&amp;#039;s just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys.&amp;quot; According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray.  You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war.  Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics.  You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government.  I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were.  I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit.  That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army&amp;#039;s flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The difference in the two 4th of July parades accurately displays the differing views of the American people. When the WWII veterans returned home, hundreds of people were lining the streets, cheering, clapping, and holding American flags. When Ron is being driven through the parade the people lining the streets are jeering and giving him the figure. It shows the very different reactions of the American people to these two wars. One war they supported (WWII), the other they did not (Vietnam). Also, during the first parade when the fireworks/gun shots(?) are fired the veteran is startled and flinches and young Ron takes notice of that; this is exactly what happens to Ron during the parade, he flinches when he hears that gun shot sound. These are two examples of the PTSD the soldiers experienced that affected them in their everyday life.  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This film was the first that hammered home for me how bad it is when the government isn&amp;#039;t prepared to take care of wounded veterans.  The scenes in the VA hospital make it easy to understand the difficulties associated with a lack of funding, and what it was like for veterans in those hospitals.  I guess watching Forest Gump too many times left me thinking VA hospitals were all ping pong and ice cream. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the scene in the bar where Kovic and the WWII Marine get into a scuffle was powerful in that it showed the disconnect between generations and between the views on the different wars. I know that guys like my grandfather who served in the Marines in the Pacific during WWII and in Korea often had little sympathy for perceived &amp;quot;whiners&amp;quot; from Vietnam. Because of the different circumstances surrounding the two wars and the vast differences between the generations, it is no wonder there were such tensions among the veterans.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree on the movie doing a great job with showing how Ron’s view changes towards the war.  It shows how society around him affected his thoughts on how the war had a negative impact on America.   The film also gave examples of what was happening in America, the Kent State shootings (Donna briefly stated about) and the brutal beatings by police officers at the war rallies. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Ron&amp;#039;s Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they&amp;#039;re just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people.  The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control.  It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC.  Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn&amp;#039;t have been. -Whitney Holcomb &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Really? I thought the reason they were shocked is that the Americans honestly didn&amp;#039;t think there were civilians in the area. The justification for shooting was that the lieutenant saw rifles in the huts, only later did the Americans find out that the VC had used civilians as &amp;quot;Cover&amp;quot;. Also I thought the confusion and uncertainty between unarmed civilians and VC was one of the main frustrations American soldiers had fighting in Vietnam. I thought this scene was accurate. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpreted the backwards hanging of the flag as a sign of symbolic protest. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision.  - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awe come on, Elle.  You didn&amp;#039;t like the American Hero story?  It&amp;#039;s not shown on the silver screen nearly enough.  That&amp;#039;s not to say it wasn&amp;#039;t an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will&amp;#039;s family that he was responsible for their son&amp;#039;s murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe this is a function of there just not being a whole lot of combat scenes but I was wondering where all the black soldiers were? There was the guy that saved Kovic and carried him to safety, but I don&amp;#039;t recall seeing any other black soldiers, which is strange seeing as how something like 60 percent of black males were drafted. Though I guess the protest scenes showed a bit more diversity. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don’t know much about the book the movie is based off of, but I felt the whole scene in Mexico was inaccurate. If I’m wrong please correct me, but this was something America did not talk about if it were true.  Was Mexico a popular retreat place for the Vets, and was it exactly like how it was portrayed in the film? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not sure, but in the scene Ron and a friend of his were talking about the war and the friend stated “This is a wealthy man’s war.”  What does he mean by that?  It was not a war for the common soldier because most soldiers who fought were from the lower class. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpreted this quote about &amp;quot;the wealthy man&amp;#039;s war&amp;quot; as an acknowledgment of the notion that politicians in Washington &amp;quot;play war&amp;quot;, using lower class boys as their playing pieces. In other words, the &amp;quot;fatcats&amp;quot; in Washington make war, but let others do their fightin&amp;#039;. Take a listen to Creedence Clearwater Revival&amp;#039;s Fortunate Son. Here is a lyric that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up every time,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Some folks are born made to wave the flag,&lt;br /&gt;
Ooh, they&amp;#039;re red, white and blue.&lt;br /&gt;
And when the band plays hail to the chief,&lt;br /&gt;
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.&lt;br /&gt;
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,&amp;quot;- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Tim O&amp;#039;Brian&amp;#039;s book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;A Rumor of War,&amp;quot; the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally.  How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it.  They answered Kennedy&amp;#039;s call of &amp;quot;ask what you can do for your country&amp;quot; and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII.  You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy&amp;#039;s address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So this wasn&amp;#039;t a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very pleased to see O&amp;#039;Brien&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Things They Carried&amp;#039;&amp;#039; selected as a reading for this film. I would highly suggest that anyone who hasn&amp;#039;t read O&amp;#039;Brien to pick up &amp;#039;&amp;#039;TTTC&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Going After Cacciato&amp;#039;&amp;#039; as both are extremely powerful books in understanding the psyche of the Vietnam soldier. I found that of any text (be it film, novel, textbook), The Things They Carried was the most formative for me in understanding the impact of Vietnam on a generation (which is notable seeing as how it is a work of fiction). In regards to this film and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;TTTC&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I found that Kovic&amp;#039;s despair upon returning and most people not really caring about the war was reflected well in O&amp;#039;Brien&amp;#039;s book. Though not in our excerpt, there is a story of a Vietnam vet who returns home and basically drives around his town every night with nothing to do, trying to figure out where he fits in with the world he has returned home to find. In my opinion it is the most heartbreaking part of the book in that all this person wants is basically the occasional pat on the back for a job well done, not a fancy parade, but he never really gets it. Also the issue of returning home to girls that have since moved on in their lives is reflected in the book, as with Kovic and his childhood sweetheart with whom he can no longer really communicate.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Rumor of War&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I thought Caputo’s discussion of nostalgia offered a new perspective on why the Vietnam conflict was so complicated for Vietnam veterans. Whether veterans supported or protested the war, their time in Vietnam was the most formative experience of their lives. Caputo said his objections to Vietnam were informed by a completely different set of circumstances than that of the homefront protesters- war. “Because I had fought in it, it was not an abstract issue, but a deeply emotional experience, the most significant thing that had happened to me.” I think this is the very sentiment that everyone ought to keep in mind when discussing the Vietnam conflict (and really any hot-button issue). Regardless of where people fall on the issue of Vietnam, everyone’s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;opinion&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is valid. Too often one side accuses the other side of “not getting it” or that “they’re wrong”, but this accusation misses the point. With an issue as personal and emotional as war, there is no right or wrong, just a poignant internalization of a provocative reality.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers, including Ron Kovic really thought they were going to beat Communists in Vietnam in the beginning. They were disillusioned. The Cold War was coming to an end around the time this movie was made. The Tienanmen Square Massacre happened on July 4, 1989 and Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. It seems like with the release of this film, the filmmakers were making a comment on Communism or the war on it.- Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, &amp;quot;Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted.&amp;quot; Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn&amp;#039;t looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn&amp;#039;t even meant to be Oliver Stone&amp;#039;s baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn&amp;#039;t that enough? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was the use of the blinking club lights meant to convey a sense of unreality in Ronnie&amp;#039;s life after his return home? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That makes sense for the &amp;quot;Vietnam Section&amp;quot; I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie?  It didn&amp;#039;t really seem to make sense and I don&amp;#039;t know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that.  Something just doesn&amp;#039;t seem to add up.  But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kelly&amp;#039;s response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone&amp;#039;s, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &amp;#039;s relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is &amp;quot;filmography&amp;quot; as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic&amp;#039;s story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039; validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did Tom Cruise&amp;#039;s hair change so drastically? I&amp;#039;m assuming it&amp;#039;s suppose to show how much he aged while at war, but I have to say it made me somewhat uncomfortable. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought most of Ron&amp;#039;s childhood scenes were hyper-dramatized and nearly silly.  &amp;quot;I had a dream last night Ron.  You were talking in front of a whole bunch of people...&amp;quot;?  There are the dangers of basing a film on an autobiography.  We are all the heroes of our own lives. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times.  I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic.  Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else&amp;#039;s, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, &amp;quot;war,&amp;quot; Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t really care for this.  It wasn&amp;#039;t very entertaining for me and it&amp;#039;s not something I would ever watch again.  I didn&amp;#039;t have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he&amp;#039;d actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he&amp;#039;d been gone.  We see kid Ron watching JFK&amp;#039;s speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967.  Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in &amp;#039;46 do things come together.  I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war &amp;gt; Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end.  And, I know that&amp;#039;s how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn&amp;#039;t handle it.  Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic.  And I think abbreviating Kovic&amp;#039;s life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal.  As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents?  I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now.  They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that Stone showed the differing views between Ron and Donna. He a Vet and she a war-protester. It reminded me of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Forrest Gump&amp;#039;&amp;#039; although &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Forrest Gump&amp;#039;&amp;#039; came 8 years after &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the 4th of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I&amp;#039;m glad Stone mentioned the protest at Kent State because not only did this horrible event have a big impact on the American public but also college campuses were hubs for protests that held very powerful stances during the Vietnam era. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was expecting something really bad, and really inaccurate from Oliver Stone. He surprised me, I liked the film... a lot. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Cash&amp;#039;s comment, I cannot resist quoting Robert E. Lee: observing the slaughter of the Battle of Fredericksburg from his vantage point on Telegraph Hill, he said to Gen. Longstreet, &amp;quot;It is well that war is so terrible - we should grow too fond of it.&amp;quot;  It still rings true.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-19T02:21:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets.  They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village.  He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit.  Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron&amp;#039;s character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don&amp;#039;t have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, &amp;quot;Cutbacks.  The government&amp;#039;s just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys.&amp;quot; According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Ron&amp;#039;s Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they&amp;#039;re just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people.  The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control.  It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC.  Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn&amp;#039;t have been. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Tim O&amp;#039;Brian&amp;#039;s book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times.  I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic.  Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t really care for this.  It wasn&amp;#039;t very entertaining for me and it&amp;#039;s not something I would ever watch again.  I didn&amp;#039;t have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he&amp;#039;d actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he&amp;#039;d been gone.  We see kid Ron watching JFK&amp;#039;s speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967.  Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in &amp;#039;46 do things come together.  I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-19T02:10:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets.  They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village.  He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit.  Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron&amp;#039;s character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don&amp;#039;t have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, &amp;quot;Cutbacks.  The government&amp;#039;s just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys.&amp;quot; According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Ron&amp;#039;s Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they&amp;#039;re just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people.  The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control.  It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC.  Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn&amp;#039;t have been. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Tim O&amp;#039;Brian&amp;#039;s book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times.  I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic.  Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-19T02:06:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets.  They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village.  He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit.  Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron&amp;#039;s character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don&amp;#039;t have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, &amp;quot;Cutbacks.  The government&amp;#039;s just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys.&amp;quot; According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Ron&amp;#039;s Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they&amp;#039;re just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people.  The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control.  It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC.  Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn&amp;#039;t have been. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Tim O&amp;#039;Brian&amp;#039;s book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times.  I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic.  Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-19T01:54:52Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets.  They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village.  He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit.  Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron&amp;#039;s character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don&amp;#039;t have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, &amp;quot;Cutbacks.  The government&amp;#039;s just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys.&amp;quot; According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Tim O&amp;#039;Brian&amp;#039;s book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times.  I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic.  Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-13T04:43:48Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct.  For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa&amp;#039;s sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers&amp;#039; choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn&amp;#039;t know what was going on. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dates and major events all happened at the right time, including the bombing of Dr. King&amp;#039;s home. Through tear-fogged eyes, I was able to see that this was a heartbreakingly accurate depiction of a world where we referred to other human beings as dogs, and often worse names than that. The Citizen&amp;#039;s Coalition seemed to be accurately depicted, down to the Confederate Flag as its logo. This wasn&amp;#039;t an easy movie to get through, but that was the point. It wasn&amp;#039;t an easy time to be black either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the dissension between the groups was well depicted - Miriam and her husband disagreed on the issue, and the black family&amp;#039;s daughter didn&amp;#039;t get it either. I like that we could see all sides of the story through these two families. Blacks didn&amp;#039;t all automatically think YEAH! Let&amp;#039;s walk everywhere! It caught on through the meetings/rallies and some had to be convinced. And not all whites felt the same way about the situation either - and I also liked the progression that both Miriam and her husband went through - not affected, somewhat concerned, then taking action. Very powerful movie. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depictions of the non-violent responses by the Montgomery black population to be very powerful. There is the scene where the middle son basically takes a whupping, resisting the urge to fight back, and the violent white mob at the end of the movie is met merely with song. Many civil rights leaders, like MLK, relied on non-violent resistance and this movie did well to exhibit the power inherent in non-violence.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the way the movie handled the black community&amp;#039;s gender roles fairly well. Though in many cases it was the women out on the front lines protesting, earning, taking the long walks, in all the church scenes the authority figures were male.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well it would be true that most of the leaders of black civil rights groups would be male although women played a very heavy role in the movement they were not given as much representation in leadership so I do not feel that was inaccurate. I also thought the bus scene at the beginning of the movie was particularly well done from an historic standpoint. I also felt this movie had a very good time progression you can see this especially as the actions of Whites against the boycott become progresively worse over the course of the movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was impressed with the overall accuracy, including the timing of events. I felt that the movie did a good job portraying what seemed to be accurate emotions and struggles of those involved.  They did a good job showing gender roles in both the white and black communities, however, i felt that they should have showed more men involved in the bus boycott.  It seemed that most of the male involvement was in the Church. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie was accurate with how white women would pick up their black maids for work when the boycott began  Miriam shows this well with picking up Odessa at least two times a week for work. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As many have said before me, this movie is strikingly accurate in its portrayal of the 1950s American south.  The filmmakers made an excellent decision in portraying every character (except perhaps the vile brother-in-law) as three dimensional people with conflicted interests and complex motivations.  I was particularly impressed by the handling of gender roles.  Outside of the home, Miriam is unquestionably superior to Odessa.  But within their own family spheres, Odessa has significantly more influence over her family than Miriam does over hers.  Little details, like blacks having to pay at the front of the bus then board in the back or Miriam&amp;#039;s being a member of the Junior League, add to the film&amp;#039;s air of authenticity.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really stuck out to me, and I know it&amp;#039;s minor, but the characters even acknowledged how new MLK was to the scene.  I think it was at the Christmas dinner when they mentioned how MLK had just gotten to Montgomery and although it&amp;#039;s almost in passing, it shows that the filmmakers really did their research.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The economic conditions of Odessa’s family were pretty right on. It was clear that they were living relatively comfortably as part of the postwar economic boom, but they were still tight on money. Odessa worked as a domestic servant, and she needed that work to support her family just like many other black women. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The handling of the boycott was done really well. Odessa didn’t outright say she was participating in the boycott (but rather that she was scared to ride the bus), and Miriam didn’t outright say she was driving Odessa and later the others around. Like in the readings, everyone was lying, and everyone knew about the lying, but no one called anyone out on it. They also showed the white drivers being harassed by the cops in order to break the boycott. Probably most importantly, the movie did a nice job getting across how huge the boycott was and just what it meant to the blacks. The sentiment that “my feet are tired, but my soul is rested” was very evident. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Miriam&amp;#039;s revelation  of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she&amp;#039;s willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word &amp;quot;nigger&amp;quot; a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don&amp;#039;t doubt that some Southern white women did help, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;but&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, &amp;quot;Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home.&amp;quot;(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be &amp;quot;fresh and alert&amp;quot; during work, or &amp;quot;I want my maid to be on time&amp;quot;, Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of &amp;quot;I want you to be awake!&amp;quot;, the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam&amp;#039;s character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious &amp;quot;I stayed in the pool&amp;quot; mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary&amp;#039;s zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lauren, I didn&amp;#039;t find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks.  I don&amp;#039;t think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn&amp;#039;t see much hesitation on her part during the film.  First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn&amp;#039;t agree with it.  She knew from the start that her husband didn&amp;#039;t approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so.  She didn&amp;#039;t want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment.  By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites&amp;#039; sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where were all of the real characters from the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree Jason, I wish they had showed more of the real people instead of just making up characters. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--Whitney, you reminded me of another point that I wanted to say. I was so happy when Miriam stood up to her husband on her right to drive Odessa to work and told him that if he insists on running her household, that she&amp;#039;ll involve herself in his business. After all, she does have a college degree. That defiance wasn&amp;#039;t surprising coming from her, but suddenly  (thinking for what seemed like a day) she has a determination to get a job just so she can drive Odessa and have her own money. From what I can see, she never had a job before and she was wholly dependent on her husband for as long they&amp;#039;ve been married. I&amp;#039;m just questioning the likelihood that Miriam would change her career life dramatically. Helping with the boycott changes her and her family&amp;#039;s life in any case, but going to work outside the home would impact her and her family even more directly. --Jason, I agree with you about her broad personality, but I viewed her as naive. She&amp;#039;s had her husband take care of her for years and now she&amp;#039;s taking large steps very quickly towards progression. Women in her place would have been more hesitant or taken smaller steps over a longer period of time, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;if&amp;#039;&amp;#039; they did anything. The behavior and views of Miriam&amp;#039;s companions illustrate what many Southern women felt. With the time constraints on the movie, the filmmakers felt the need to speed the process of Miriam&amp;#039;s change; but I felt it was too fast. Some Southern white women did help, like Virginia Durr; but she went to Wellesley College in Massachusetts. That experience in the North must&amp;#039;ve impacted her life in a positive way towards blacks (Source: http://www.wellesley.edu/Anniversary/durr.html). Unlike most Southern women, Virginia Durr had experience with black peers and got to understand them as more than inferior people who work for her. As far as I can see, Miriam has lived in the South all her life. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene that I found most questionable was the end scene. Although I know Miriam decided to support the bus boycott I just find it unlikely that any women would go so far as to stand up to a mob especially when they had a daughter to worry about. I also found Miriam&amp;#039;s change in atitude a little to sudden she never really talked heart to heart with Odessa before and after one conversation with her she suddenly becomes a fanatic to the cause even if she was sympathetic to the cause. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Norman Thompson (the husband) intriguing, specifically his attitudes towards the Citizen&amp;#039;s Council.  At first, he seemed indifferent to the goals and values of the organization, but then he is influenced by his brother to regularly attend meetings as his views about blacks developed.  Furthermore, when his wife found out he was going to these meetings and asked why, he responded at one point &amp;quot;it&amp;#039;s either that or the KKK.&amp;quot;  In class, we discussed the uprising of the KKK again because of the bus boycotts.  What I want to know is how whites viewed the KKK during this time.  Did they undermine and de-value their purpose as Norman&amp;#039;s comments implied? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter decides to ride the bus and the three white boys harass her would the bus driver really have stopped the bus and told them to get off. Telling them he would call the cops if they didn&amp;#039;t and then telling them to never get on his bus again. Everything I have ever learned leads me to think that the bus driver would have asked Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter to get off and let the boys alone. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m surprised the film didn’t add anything about Brown v. Board of Edu. That was a big accomplishment for the black communities and also occurred before the bus boycott.  Also did they have any other bus boycotts besides in Montgomery, AL? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;s a bit presumptuous to assume that an upper-middle class woman like Miriam wouldn&amp;#039;t have supported the bus boycott by running carpool.  Yes, racism was extremely prevalent in the south.  Yes, her character risks a lot by doing so.  But in all social movements like the Civil Rights movement, people risked their lives and reputations for what they believed in.  If they--black and white--hadn&amp;#039;t done so, the movement wouldn&amp;#039;t have succeeded.  I agree that Miriam isn&amp;#039;t representative of the average woman of her stature at the time, but we can&amp;#039;t say it wouldn&amp;#039;t have happened.  Just my two cents.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be honest, I can’t think of too much to complain about. It makes me wonder if I’m missing something, because that just seems so wrong. Oh woe, what kind of world do we live in when we can&amp;#039;t find inaccuracies in a historical film? On the issues discussed above: The readings suggested that it was actually quite common for white women to drive their maids around. Now, I’m sure some of this had to do with convenience on the white women’s part, since they just really needed their maids, but there were also women like Virginia Durr who truly believed in the cause. I think Miriam represented both of these types. In the beginning she’s sympathetic, but she’s more interested in housework getting done. By the end, she’s a convert to the cause. Maybe it was a bit fast (we don’t really know how long passed in the movie), but it’s a fair representation. Also, while Miriam didn’t attend college in the North, she did give that little speech about growing up one way and then seeing more of the world, which she did a tad more than Norman did (that little trip with the ladies and the swimming hole). Also, I think she was quite dissatisfied with her life as a happy homemaker (à la &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Feminine Mystique&amp;#039;&amp;#039;) and was looking for something more worthwhile to do with herself. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed:  When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened.  In Mrs. Durr&amp;#039;s statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit.  Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Testimony of Thomas Williams&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I felt the main idea of the testimony was to convey the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;de facto&amp;#039;&amp;#039; laws of the South, and how those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. It was the small but powerful phrase uttered by the bus driver that justified everything that happened to Williams and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era- &amp;quot;Your in the South now&amp;quot;. Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. &amp;quot;...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things.&amp;quot; In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating that domination and intimidation. As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be silly BUT... Why was there not even the slightest mention of the schools - Brown v. Board had already happened... how long did it take for the desegregation of schools to actually kick in? -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I remember from the readings correctly, the South continued with their segregation and Jim Crow laws even after Supreme Court decisions.  Much of the unconstitutional decisions did go in effect in the South until the federal government forcibly made the South listen to those decisions. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I,too, found Thomas Williams&amp;#039; account to be truly profound. In particular, when he discusses his experience in the jail. He said that he was treated peacefully, which to be honest I was surprised because as we see in the movie and from our knowledge of history this is an extremely hostile time for African Americans. He further explains how one of the deputies tells him he should consider him self lucky for being treated so kindly (... yeah, OK) and not getting his &amp;quot;head beat in&amp;quot; and in all &amp;quot;fairness&amp;quot; that is what would have happened if a white person stepped outside their bounds.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Long Walk Home&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and Thomas Williams&amp;#039; account are both truly heartbreaking and it&amp;#039;s sickening to know that a country who prides itself on democratic beliefs and equality for all citizens could have endured such an unfathomable period of history. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie does a good job at following the details given about the bus boycott in primary sources. The instances of the car speeding incidence and the attitude of the police was well shown in this movie by the scene where Odessa advices Miriam to drive slow because of tickets and the scene where Odessa is kicked out of the park by the police. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this happened on purpose, but Long Walk Home was nestled in a chronology of MAJOR movies being made about growing up in America as a member of the black community. Others were Do The Right Thing (1989), Boyz N The Hood (1991), Malcolm X (1992), and Menace II Society (1993). Anyone know if this was coincidence or not? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really wonder what the experience was like for the black actors making this movie.  So Whoppi only being born in 1955 would have not experience the bus boycott but would have experience other Civil Rights movements as a young child.  Was it hard for these actors to portray these roles? I cant imagine having to relive that kind of experience. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By skimming through reviews on IMDB and going through Roger Ebert&amp;#039;s website, the movie was generally well-received.  It did not get nominated for any major awards, and I don&amp;#039;t think it made the money a blockbuster film would have, but its major themes are ones that are going to resonate with future audiences.  This film reminded me of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Driving Miss Daisy&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because it focused on the relationship between one black person and one white person.  None of the characters were monumental to the effect of Rosa Parks or MLK, but it did show how important every single person was to the progression towards racial equality.  I thoroughly enjoyed this film and appreciate its message. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The style of this movie was somewhat strange to me - the camera would focus on closer objects or people, or further objects and have the alternate distance one blurry. Also I remember a few rolling shots where it followed Miriam across the room, but she goes behind something and comes out on the other side. Another example - close up on the telephone. Strange to me, but artistic. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone have a problem with a movie about the Montgomery Bus Boycotts being told from a young affluent white girl&amp;#039;s perspective? Was it just me, or did this movie seem to be a bit too focused on the evolution of Miriam into an activist, rather than the movement to organize a successful boycott? Granted, I still felt that this was a powerful depiction, I just thought that maybe the story of the black family should have been more clearly the &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; storyline.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this fact.  I think that even though you did not get the full picture you were able to get a better understanding of the confusion of the time.  The little girl didn&amp;#039;t really understand what was going on so it give everything a naive sort of feel&lt;br /&gt;
to a hard and difficult time.  I think that by tell it though a young girl&amp;#039;s perspective it allows the viewer to see the white perspective of what was going on, thereby allowing you to sympathize with the maid that raised the young child. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I liked how they alluded to MLK without actually showing him. Is it just me or is there some unspoken Hollywood agreement that King will not be prominently depicted on screen? I was trying to think about this, and to my memory there aren&amp;#039;t any movies where an actor portrays King. Why do you think this is the case? Is it because he was such an electrifying and dynamic person that no actor is comfortable risking their career depicting such an icon? Another thing I was wondering, how is it that there have not been any movies about the Freedom Rides (at least to my knowledge)? After reading James Farmer&amp;#039;s autobiography &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Lay Bare the Heart&amp;#039;&amp;#039; last year I was struck at how compelling a narrative that the freedom rides would make for film. Certainly this would make for a better movie than Saw 38 or whatever number they are on.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I have to say I agree, but unfortunately my answer is a bit cynical. Hollywood has, in addition to trying to re-define (read: stereotype!) gender roles, also fit racial roles into neat, little stereotypical boxes. Your cheeky inclusion of the Saw movies (they&amp;#039;ve greenlit Saw 8, by the way, even though only 5 have been made) is actually rather relevant, because no genre is more guilty of this than horror. After all, if any rule remains constant, it&amp;#039;s that the black guy dies first. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next point to make is that we have very few legendary black actors. Our most famous, Denzel Washington, has been typecast to an epic level. Man On Fire, Virtuosity, Out of Time and Inside Man are all the same movie, in a different setting, with different names. It&amp;#039;s unfortunate, but as a culture, we are simply not ready to let our black actors shine the way we let our whites. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie seems to hold back a bit on showing the actual violence going on. The movie implies the violence is bad by mentioning the church bombings, but the couple of scenes of actual violence in the movie are relevantly tame. There is clearly an attitude of fear in the movie about the situation, but we never really see the real reason for the fear as all the characters in the movie get off ok. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the filmmaker&amp;#039;s choice to have this movie from the daughter&amp;#039;s perspective very interesting and very beneficial to its achievement of historical accuracy.  At first, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but chuckle at the fact that a young white girl was telling a story about one of the most influential movements in black civil rights history.  But when you think about it, you couldn&amp;#039;t get a more objective point of view.  The daughter had no idea what was going on, she did not know the concept of race.  She only sees the care and protectiveness from both her parents and Odessa.  I think this made it easier for the audience to immerse themselves into the shoes of Odessa and other blacks during the bus boycotts, as well as Miriam, her husband, and especially her daughter. Furthermore, there are no biases attached to the daughter because of her attachment to her family and Odessa.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how in the movie when Miriam drives by the carpool lot and is asking Odessa about it and Odessa explains how the carpool works.  When Miriam says she wants to help because it is just about busing and Odessa explains that it is about more than just busing. She asks Miriam how will she feel when blacks are teaching in white schools or living in her neighborhood and tells her if she crosses that line she can&amp;#039;t go back. The movie then cuts away to the next day. I think this helps give the sense that maybe whites who were helping didn&amp;#039;t necessarily understand what they were becoming involved in and then when they did find out and what it would truly mean for them, they had doubts about it. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Bryan&amp;#039;s question about the narrator, although it kind of bothered me too I feel like it was a definite choice made by the filmmakers.  Kellye touched on it best when she mentioned how it relayed the confusion of the time; kids were being raised into these types of households.  They didn&amp;#039;t really understand what was going on and to be a young girl especially in the situation she was in, must have been difficult.  But I can definitely see the need to make the black family more central than they seemed to be.  The storyline seemed to focus almost more around Miriam than Odessa to me.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan-  There was a 1978 TV movie &amp;quot;King,&amp;quot; in which Paul Winfield portrayed Martin Luther King, Jr. and Cicely Tyson portrayed Coretta Scott King.  (Those two actors were in my project movie, Sounder.)  And Cash- what about Denzel Washington in oh, say, Malcolm X?  And Remember the Titans? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements.  However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I cried. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, seriously, Jason did cry. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I sobbed. On more than one occasion, and loudly. I still don&amp;#039;t have words to really articulate the way I felt after this one, other than to say I think it&amp;#039;s the best movie we&amp;#039;ve watched so far. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I got teary-eyed, too, at some point, although I can&amp;#039;t remember where.  Overall, I think this movie is an effective portrayal of this significant event in US history, since its details are often overlooked in classrooms.  It gets across the personal effects of racism to these particular families and how they had tolerated it but would no longer. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that they didn&amp;#039;t try to portray the monumental people of this movement in the film - there was no rosa parks or MLK Jr, which, to me made it better. Overall, very good film. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a bit of interesting information that I wanted to share with everyone. I was reading up on the movie just to get some more background information and I read that one of the buses used in the film was actually the Montgomery Bus Lines bus that Rosa Parks was riding on when she was arrested. --Mallory Cruise&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After some of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched this semester, and comparing it to the length of next week&amp;#039;s film, this one was rather short.  Not that I mind, it was nice to have a shorter film.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed that such a short film (only 97 minutes) could have such a tremendous impact.  It was an incredible movie. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed by this movie.  I was very impressed with Merriam&amp;#039;s role in the movement and how she stood up to her husband, I could really see a push for equality for women as well.  There were definitely parts of the movie that almost made me cry. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was very well done. Yes it was short but I think it added to the movie in this case. There is no need to show the whole bus boycott. It would have made a really long really boring movie. It was just the right length to get involved with the boycott and subsequently the Civil Rights Movement that is growing and show how people were reacting without going overboard. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle, with the filmmaker’s view of leaving real characters out of the film.  The movie felt real to me and definitely left me thinking afterwards on the trouble the black community went through with standing up for their rights. Though, I did enjoy the mixture of Martin Luther King speeches throughout the movie. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glad to know I wasn&amp;#039;t the only one crying on Tuesday night in Chandler!  This is definitely a tearjerker, although not of the Titanic variation.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-12T05:02:41Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct.  For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa&amp;#039;s sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dates and major events all happened at the right time, including the bombing of Dr. King&amp;#039;s home. Through tear-fogged eyes, I was able to see that this was a heartbreakingly accurate depiction of a world where we referred to other human beings as dogs, and often worse names than that. The Citizen&amp;#039;s Coalition seemed to be accurately depicted, down to the Confederate Flag as its logo. This wasn&amp;#039;t an easy movie to get through, but that was the point. It wasn&amp;#039;t an easy time to be black either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers&amp;#039; choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn&amp;#039;t know what was going on. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Miriam&amp;#039;s revelation  of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she&amp;#039;s willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word &amp;quot;nigger&amp;quot; a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don&amp;#039;t doubt that some Southern white women did help, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;but&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, &amp;quot;Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home.&amp;quot;(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be &amp;quot;fresh and alert&amp;quot; during work, or &amp;quot;I want my maid to be on time&amp;quot;, Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of &amp;quot;I want you to be awake!&amp;quot;, the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam&amp;#039;s character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious &amp;quot;I stayed in the pool&amp;quot; mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary&amp;#039;s zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lauren, I didn&amp;#039;t find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks.  I don&amp;#039;t think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn&amp;#039;t see much hesitation on her part during the film.  First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn&amp;#039;t agree with it.  She knew from the start that her husband didn&amp;#039;t approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so.  She didn&amp;#039;t want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment.  By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites&amp;#039; sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where were all of the real characters from the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed:  When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened.  In Mrs. Durr&amp;#039;s statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit.  Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Testimony of Thomas Williams&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I felt the main idea of the testimony was to convey the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;de facto&amp;#039;&amp;#039; laws of the South, and how those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. It was the small but powerful phrase uttered by the bus driver that justified everything that happened to Williams and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era- &amp;quot;Your in the South now&amp;quot;. Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. &amp;quot;...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things.&amp;quot; In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating that domination and intimidation. As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this happened on purpose, but Long Walk Home was nestled in a chronology of MAJOR movies being made about growing up in America as a member of the black community. Others were Do The Right Thing (1989), Boyz N The Hood (1991), Malcolm X (1992), and Menace II Society (1993). Anyone know if this was coincidence or not? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements.  However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I cried. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I sobbed. On more than one occasion, and loudly. I still don&amp;#039;t have words to really articulate the way I felt after this one, other than to say I think it&amp;#039;s the best movie we&amp;#039;ve watched so far. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I got teary-eyed, too, at some point, although I can&amp;#039;t remember where.  Overall, I think this movie is an effective portrayal of this significant event in US history, since its details are often overlooked in classrooms.  It gets across the personal effects of racism to these particular families and how they had tolerated it but would no longer. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-12T03:22:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct.  For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa&amp;#039;s sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers&amp;#039; choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn&amp;#039;t know what was going on. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Miriam&amp;#039;s revelation  of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she&amp;#039;s willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word &amp;quot;nigger&amp;quot; a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don&amp;#039;t doubt that some Southern white women did help, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;but&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, &amp;quot;Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home.&amp;quot;(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be &amp;quot;fresh and alert&amp;quot; during work, or &amp;quot;I want my maid to be on time&amp;quot;, Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of &amp;quot;I want you to be awake!&amp;quot;, the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam&amp;#039;s character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious &amp;quot;I stayed in the pool&amp;quot; mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary&amp;#039;s zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lauren, I didn&amp;#039;t find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks.  I don&amp;#039;t think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn&amp;#039;t see much hesitation on her part during the film.  First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn&amp;#039;t agree with it.  She knew from the start that her husband didn&amp;#039;t approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so.  She didn&amp;#039;t want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment.  By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites&amp;#039; sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where were all of the real characters from the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed:  When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened.  In Mrs. Durr&amp;#039;s statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit.  Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements.  However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-12T03:21:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct.  For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa&amp;#039;s sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers&amp;#039; choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn&amp;#039;t know what was going on. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Miriam&amp;#039;s revelation  of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she&amp;#039;s willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word &amp;quot;nigger&amp;quot; a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don&amp;#039;t doubt that some Southern white women did help, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;but&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, &amp;quot;Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home.&amp;quot;(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be &amp;quot;fresh and alert&amp;quot; during work, or &amp;quot;I want my maid to be on time&amp;quot;, Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of &amp;quot;I want you to be awake!&amp;quot;, the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam&amp;#039;s character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious &amp;quot;I stayed in the pool&amp;quot; mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary&amp;#039;s zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lauren, I didn&amp;#039;t find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks.  I don&amp;#039;t think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn&amp;#039;t see much hesitation on her part during the film.  First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn&amp;#039;t agree with it.  She knew from the start that her husband didn&amp;#039;t approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so.  She didn&amp;#039;t want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment.  By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites&amp;#039; sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where were all of the real characters from the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed:  When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened.  In Mrs. Durr&amp;#039;s statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit.  Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements.  However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-12T03:01:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct.  For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa&amp;#039;s sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers&amp;#039; choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn&amp;#039;t know what was going on. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Miriam&amp;#039;s revelation  of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she&amp;#039;s willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word &amp;quot;nigger&amp;quot; a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don&amp;#039;t doubt that some Southern white women did help, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;but&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed:  When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened.  In Mrs. Durr&amp;#039;s statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit.  Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements.  However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Project_List</id>
		<title>329--Project List</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Project_List"/>
				<updated>2008-11-11T00:30:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 329--Project List */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 329--Project List ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Place your name and the link to the start of your project below.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
James Drury: [http://jwdrury.umwblogs.org/]   jwdrury.umwblogs.org/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye Sorber: http://ksorb2yv.umwblogs.org/apollo-13-study/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley Wilkins: http://awilkins.umwblogs.org/  (Its a variety of pages on the Side Links, 5 to be exact)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elle Weaver: http://eweaver.umwblogs.org/bonnieandclyde/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mary Beth Conrad:  http://embea.umwblogs.org/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash Nelson: http://nickn87.umwblogs.org/2008/11/06/jfk-project-page-one/ (the blog directly after this one chronologically is part two of the project)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whitney Holcomb: http://wholcomb.umwblogs.org/sounder/&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Project_List</id>
		<title>329--Project List</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Project_List"/>
				<updated>2008-11-11T00:29:15Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 329--Project List */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 329--Project List ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Place your name and the link to the start of your project below.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
James Drury: [http://jwdrury.umwblogs.org/]   jwdrury.umwblogs.org/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye Sorber: http://ksorb2yv.umwblogs.org/apollo-13-study/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley Wilkins: http://awilkins.umwblogs.org/  (Its a variety of pages on the Side Links, 5 to be exact)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elle Weaver: http://eweaver.umwblogs.org/bonnieandclyde/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mary Beth Conrad:  http://embea.umwblogs.org/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash Nelson: http://nickn87.umwblogs.org/2008/11/06/jfk-project-page-one/ (the blog directly after this one chronologically is part two of the project)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whitney Holcomb: [http://wholcomb.umwblogs.org/sounder/]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-05T07:20:53Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year.  This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends.  People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred&amp;#039;s before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don&amp;#039;t know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom.  I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war.  Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I&amp;#039;m glad to be seeing this after the lecture.  Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn&amp;#039;t help Fred much.  One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn&amp;#039;t just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We didn&amp;#039;t discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home.  I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren&amp;#039;t specific - just a &amp;quot;seriously injured&amp;quot; category and a forwarding address. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals.  He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don&amp;#039;t mean much to him.  Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued?  Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations?  Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred&amp;#039;s attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless.  Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that&amp;#039;s one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place.  His daughter then makes an interesting comment about taking a class in domestic science.  Was this a common course in most school&amp;#039;s curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts.  For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray.  I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946.  Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-05T06:59:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I&amp;#039;m glad to be seeing this after the lecture.  Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn&amp;#039;t help Fred much.  One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn&amp;#039;t just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We didn&amp;#039;t discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home.  I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren&amp;#039;t specific - just a &amp;quot;seriously injured&amp;quot; category and a forwarding address. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals.  He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don&amp;#039;t mean much to him.  Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued?  Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations?  Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred&amp;#039;s attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless.  Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that&amp;#039;s one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place.  His daughter then makes an interesting comment about taking a class in domestic science.  Was this a common course in most school&amp;#039;s curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts.  For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray.  I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946.  Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-05T03:17:59Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I&amp;#039;m glad to be seeing this after the lecture.  Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn&amp;#039;t help Fred much.  One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-05T02:57:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-30T06:21:11Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jason, I have to say I was actually kind of surprised that Kenehan brought up the subject of Scientific Management during his speech.  I think it was helpful for swaying the men to the union because I don&amp;#039;t think many men realized just how invaluable they really were to large companies.  The white men could easily have been (and were in the process of being) replaced by the Italian men and the blacks that were also arriving in Matewan.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady&amp;#039;s son (grandson?) was killed.  The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was pretty generally accurate. It&amp;#039;s not the most perfect of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched, but it did seem to present most of the different sides and opinions involved in the formation of unions and the difficulties of the time. For the record, &amp;#039;villain&amp;#039; is a side, in this case, as we are still talking about a Hollywood movie, and the corporations and secret police could be legitimately cruel. ---Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with showing how even though the men had skepticisms about joining the Union, it was necessary in order to stand up to the mining companies and to demand that they be treated better than just mere &amp;quot;equipment.&amp;quot; The movie accurately portrayed  the brutality that went along with the competition for jobs between races and ethnicities. Also, as Kenehan pointed out it was a fight between those who worked and those who didn&amp;#039;t ( bosses standing around holding guns as miners walked out of mine), it shouldn&amp;#039;t be about skin color or background because at the end of the day they&amp;#039;re all workers and they&amp;#039;re all oppressed. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven&amp;#039;t finished the movie yet, in fact I&amp;#039;m not in to it all that much.  However, from the beginning of the movie they did get right just how dirty the men got, and also that they coughed a lot from the dust and particles. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tensions between the whites/blacks, blacks/Italians and Italians/Whites were all very well-portrayed in my opinion. The attacks that Few Clothes incurred towards the beginning of the movie, as well as the tension between the Italian grandmother and white mother throughout the film were both very realistic to me. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We learned in class that the Red Scare was a real blow to the Labor Movement in the U.S and people were suspicious of anyone/anything that could be seen as promoting Communism. This is shown in the movie when Hatfield (I believe) is writing a letter to Felts and says he believes it&amp;#039;s possible Kenehan could be a Red. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a good job in portraying the problems facing the workers. Particularly I felt they did a good job dealing with the issue of the company store and company owned houses. The movie made clear the problems mine workers faced because of this arrangement and also shows the fact that the company really did have a lot of power. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie portrayed the level of desperation and volatility that was present in these areas where unions were trying to get off the ground. Before the title even came up you are treated to the hostility of the miners toward the &amp;quot;dago&amp;quot; scabs. Then there is the attack of the black miners brought in as well. The ethnic/racial tension was pretty well represented. I also felt that the taking up of arms against the company was powerful in its depiction of the desperation of the miners, and the lack of real government control in the region. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what I gathered from Tuesday&amp;#039;s lecture, I thought Matewan was an accurate portrayal of the time.  The racial tensions among the white miners, African-American miners, and the Italian immigrants were present, as was their coming together in the face of incredible adversity.  The racism, while certainly prevalent, didn&amp;#039;t overwhelm the characters.  Sayles also included the anti-Communist sentiment that plagued the labor movement.  All in all, probably the most historically accurate movie we&amp;#039;ve seen so far this semester.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a fine job capturing many large issues in a historically accurate way. The people were very religious (as seen in the readings) and seemed to rely on it for a sense of comfort in their unjust world. The dangers of the coal mines were mentioned when the lack of husbands are discussed, and it is clear in the opening scene that mining had some pretty adverse health effects and the conditions were all around terrible. It was also obvious that the miners and their families were forced into dependence on the coal company by the company’s backhanded tactics (like raising store prices while lowering the worth of company scripts). Also, the racial and ethnic tensions and how the company used those tensions against the union is covered, as well as the gap between skilled and unskilled workers (the white miners complained that those &amp;#039;&amp;#039;E-talians&amp;#039;&amp;#039; had no mining experience). They showed that the company employed spies to undermine the striking miners, and the Baldwin-Felts men were about as brutal as could be expected. Yet, they also added a bit of complexity when the men were talking before the massacre, showing that they also had their reasons for doing things. Nevertheless, while they didn’t show them poisoning children, I could see them doing it. I think one of the most important things was the depiction of the powerlessness and victimization of the miners and their families. With living conditions like that, it’s not hard to see why people turned to unions to take some control over their lives and make things better for themselves. Finally, things don’t end happily no matter how nice it would be, which reflects the real life failure of the strike. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie stayed close to the history and even refrained from ignoring the unfortunate aftermath of the events it depicts.  This is impressive since the movie is very pro-union yet it doesn’t pretend that the union fixed everything. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the scene where the black miners are told of the company policy regarding wages and wares to be quite effective. As Taylor mentioned these tactics put the workers into instant dependency on the company as most of their wages for the first month are deducted for lodging and clothes. The man going through the protocols drones on and you can see the workers just deflate. Also I felt that this scene, in addition to the whole setting up camp showed just how difficult it was to unionize and go against the owners. No wonder unions had such trouble gaining a lasting foothold. While there could be historical discrepancies in these scenes, the emotions and messages they convey are powerful to understanding the hardships of labor during this era. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners&amp;#039; treatment of miners and their families, but that&amp;#039;s excessive. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I was that woman, I probably would have done the same thing, simply because her boy just had his throat slit by those men.  She was pissed off and emotionally a wreck from not just the union stuff, but her boy being murdered.  Just my opinion though. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that history is caricatured.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Kellye and Jason, I was caught off guard when the main character was fictional.  At least in the other movies we&amp;#039;ve watched, the main characters have been based off of, and were supposed to be, the historical figure.  To see &amp;quot;Few Clothes&amp;quot; Johnson and Sheriff Hatfield in this movie you would expect the writers to use an actual member of the union to be the central figure.  I just don&amp;#039;t understand why filmmakers decide to create people instead of take an historical event and follow through with it. -Kelly Wuyscik &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive.  He&amp;#039;s the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody.  He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first &amp;quot;this is town property&amp;quot; to the agents (that was their point...) to his final &amp;quot;You people have no right to come to this town....&amp;quot;  Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain.  Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield&amp;#039;s standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to point out another Glade Plug-In Moment - When Hillard&amp;#039;s (not sure how to spell) Mom offers her extra food to the large Italian family and there is some trouble in the communication - then all of the sudden a vague gesture indicates for the white lady to sit down and POOF the Italian woman understands a compliment about her beautiful children. I agree that there is a good point here that there was a mixing of cultures, immigrants, blacks and white hillbillies, but it is cinematic effect again that transcends all language barrier that is unbelievable to me. And for the record I was a grumbler as we left the theater, I didn&amp;#039;t particularly like the movie and I&amp;#039;m not a film buff but I do know what I like and don&amp;#039;t like entertainment-wise. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it common to have young people working in the coal mines?  I think the movie showed the boy preacher, I believe his name was Danny, working in the coal mines.  ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like someone as young as Danny would not have been allowed to work in the coal mines, or would he of because he would have been cheaper labor?  Also, would a congregation really sit and listen to a 15 year old preach to them?  That just seemed a bit weird to me. Danny also didn&amp;#039;t know how to throw a baseball apparently, but that&amp;#039;s a different subject altogether. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine and Kelly, I&amp;#039;m pretty sure that at the time, especially with labor like this, that there were HS-age kids working in the mines. They are cheap labor and are probably going to be healthier for longer, also making them long-available labor. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also don&amp;#039;t think the movie did all that great of a job showing the dangers of working in a coal mine.  None of the characters had coal mining related injuries, but there was one guy in the beginning of the movie who had a bad cough, he might have had black lung from all the coal dust. ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Katherine.  Did anyone else notice how spacious the mine seemed?  They could stand up fully and there was even room to socialize.  That&amp;#039;s a far cry from the boys who get deformed because the mine is too cramped for even their small bodies to be in. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just a minor issue, the readings led me to believe, it could have been just the one, that most miners didn&amp;#039;t leave or get out of the mines until after dark, but they definitely left and got home in the daylight, at least in the beginning. I&amp;#039;ll try to remember to update this after I finish the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the problems I had with this movie is that I feel it really simplified the race ethnic union unification. It would not be something that would happen as rapidly and easily as the movie showed, but something that would take a lot of effort over time. I also did not like the fact that after the first scene in the movie no one else was shown either sick or coughing although the damage to peoples lungs would carry on even when they were not working in the mines. A lot of scenes also felt cliche or just silly. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the reading &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children,&amp;quot; there were kids working in the coal mines with men.  They acted as &amp;quot;breaker boys,&amp;quot; collecting coal deposits and doing other menial tasks.  The significance here is that they experienced the same harsh conditions as the men, but at a greater cost because they are weaker (i.e. most die as a result).  I think Danny is representative of this youth (but keep in mind that there were younger kids working as well), but I have trouble interpreting his role as a preacher-in-training.  How much of a role did religion play with the labor union?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the part when the different groups (whites, Italians, Blacks) were playing their traditional music, which ended up harmonizing together to foreshadow in a way of unity to come.  How long did it take normally for each race to trust each other and join as one union? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest problem with &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably the lack of a larger national context. There isn’t much mention of the other parts of America going through the same struggles, which gives the sense that the strike in Matewan is somehow unique. In fact, I don’t think they even uttered the name United Mine Workers of America. Perhaps it makes the movie stronger in that it focuses on the interworkings and interrelationships of a small community, but it feels almost like Matewan exists in a bubble. Also, there is the issue of the fictional outsider, Joe Kenehan, who comes to bring his message of hope and economic justice and essentially “clean up” the town by spreading ideas of passive resistance and equality and what not. It almost plays like some Western movies (a la &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;), but not quite, as it’s clear that Joe’s efforts didn’t really succeed. There are also a lot of issues that aren’t covered, as things in Matewan didn’t end with the massacre. I didn’t feel like Danny gave much of a conclusion at the end of the movie that portrayed the continuing conflict. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to Taylor&amp;#039;s point, the only reference to a national labor movement was the fictional character Joe, who was supposed to serve as its representative.  Several times in the movie, Joe made reference to what &amp;quot;the Union&amp;quot; had to say on the issue of the strike at Matewan - how the people were supposed to wait for further instruction while the big national guys decided their next move.  Well, in the movie, the local workers of Matewan were initially very excited about the prospect of joining a union and being part of a bigger movement (eluded to when the initial leader/ Baldwin Felts spy proclaims to have been a union man all his life).  When Joe gives the workers the wait and see speech, after they all followed his advice and joined the union at great personal risk, all the workers felt betrayed and ostracized him, held meetings without him and even plotted his assassination.  Now, to what extent did a backlash actually occur against national union organizers?  I got the impression from class and the readings the union leaders were highly regarded - Buster Ratliff cites the UMWA president John L. Lewis as delivering him from slavery, so it was odd to see such local animosity against the outside union man.~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the black scabs are considering joining the union, Few Clothes likens the mining situation to slavery, largely due to the fact that the miners are made to be entirely dependent upon the company for its needs.  Referring to the start of the UMWA, Ratliff has called the mining situation slavery.  In &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot; we read accounts of the forced dependence.  Having to work for as long as they did, in the danger they did, essentially getting in return their food and housing, perhaps clothing, all subtracted from the binding scrip wages, and not being economically able to move out of the town, was akin to some conditions of slavery. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the Piece Rate system that we heard only good things about in the reading was actually not endorsed by Joe in the film. Now I am skeptical of who wrote this account. Joe&amp;#039;s machinery explanation makes more sense to me.  - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another part of the readings that I found odd in comparison to the film was the passivity of the dying coal miners in their last notes to their loved ones. In the film these miners seemed anything but passive. Religious and definitely along the same lines of waiting for their loved ones in heaven, but a little more spiteful towards the poor conditions that caused deaths and injuries. Only one man writes to his sons to never become coal miners - I felt it should have been more than that. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I didn&amp;#039;t like about the movie was how little they focused on actually being in the mines (although, for the record you couldn&amp;#039;t see a thing while they were actually in the mines so maybe it&amp;#039;s for the best.)  because the audience never got a sense of how terrible work actually was in there.  In some of the readings you can really get a sense that there was little air and that they were getting sick and trapped and injured but in the movie, more people died of gunfire than via coal mining.  It just didn&amp;#039;t seem to measure up right. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading for this week titled “Oh God, For One More Breath”: Early 20th century Tennessee Coal Miners’ Last Words, showed how religious these people were.  They constantly referred to Jesus, and how they were going to go to Heaven, and wanted to meet their family up there too. These documents reminded me of how religious the miners in the movie, especially the Italians, were with their statues of Mary, and other religious items.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading, “The Greatest Thing” Hawkins and Ratliff were talking about the revival of the UMWA by John L. Lewis and the election of FDR as the end of “slavery”. The use of slavery- era rhetoric is interesting, and I think apt. Using this language has particular prudence in the American discussion of workers rights, but was it uniquely American? I imagine that in the European context “slavery” would not be as emotive and catalytic. So, I guess that begs the question, how effective was this kind of rhetoric in America in terms of union membership and support?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering how religious mine workers were from the readings it seems off the way movie treats religion. Joe Canahan is accepted in the movie easily enough even after he states he is not religious. It seems that type of behavior would alienate and anger a lot mine workers who were very religious. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Tennessee Coal Miners&amp;#039; Last Words&amp;quot; does not directly relate, but I think it does help to further impress just how serious a job coal mining was, and why it was so important to fight for better working conditions and more rights. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading by John Spargo, he talks about the poor conditions of coal mining for the children. An example is being a coal break.  In the film Danny is a good example of a child who is too young to work in the coal mines. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To learn more about the role of religion among the child coal breakers, the author of &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children&amp;quot; asks a boy if he knows God.  The boy says, &amp;quot;God? He must work in some other mine.&amp;quot;  That is one extreme effect that coal mining has on the life of a child.  We saw the religion in the adult miners&amp;#039; last letters, but this boy is worked so much that he has no time for religious study and any family or acquaintances of his have taught him anything about God.  He&amp;#039;s not living in the greatest conditions to believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God.  Apparently the role of religion was not consistent throughout different mining towns or the ages of  miners.  In the film, the religious men can believe that the union holds a higher hope for them from their lowly, oppressed state, such that they will be delivered from the tyrant&amp;#039;s hand.  It is good to take advantage of religion for Preacher boy to get his points across to the miners without having to rat anyone out.  Besides, Danny tells the end of his Bible stories inaccurately just to make his point. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading Eugene V. Deb&amp;#039;s platform for socialism, it seems pretty clear why there was such a socialist movement in the early 20th century, evident by the kind of votes he received in 1912.  Even after the red scare, the appeal of socialist ideals was still strong for many exploited workers, such as equality for all workers, regardless of race or ethnicity.  The &amp;quot;class conflict&amp;quot; was evident in the movie too, in the form of the workers or the producers versus the non producers.  That is what was ironic about the red scare - even though the people were afraid of communists, they themselves agreed with many socialist policies. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found an article comparing the 1920s and 1980s (in a general sense, it seems) that mentions the state of unions in both periods. Basically, it seems to say that unions in the 1980s were facing the same problems as in the 1920s - layoffs, wage slashes, inability to affect policy or working conditions. Union membership declined in the 1980s, from some 25 percent of the workforce to 17 percent, much like in the 1920s when union membership dropped from 4.5 million in 1920 to 2.7 million in 1928 (according to this article, but generally it does jive with what we learned on Tuesday). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
s far as the movie being a primary source, it portrays Sid Hatfield as an archetypal cowboy.  Perhaps this because he was the sheriff.  Either way, this portrayal is romanticized and informs us more about ourselves than the historical Sid Hatfield. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was neat how they made the impression that the young boy, Danny, was the narrator in the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Ashley on how they made Danny as the narrator for the film. Most characters who narrate are much older than Danny’s age when telling a story about their past life situations. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I abandoned my boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t agree more! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holy crap. Take it back Jackie. Take it back right now. There Will Be Blood was the best movie I&amp;#039;ve seen in years, unquestionably. How can you possibly rag on a PT Anderson film?! And if we are going to nitpick actors, Will Oldham showed everyone why he should have stuck to music. He&amp;#039;s great in Old Joy, but pretty awful in this. However, Chris Cooper showed why he has been given so many solid roles in later years, and I have yet to see a James Earl Jones movie I don&amp;#039;t like. And did anyone else notice that the guy who plays Dr.Kelso on &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Scrubs&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was in this?? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, now I enjoyed Matewan, but I feel that comparisons to TWBB are mostly superficial. Yes they both are centered on extractive industries in rural areas pre WWII, and yes there is the young preacher in both films as well. But first, I have to say that the music (at least for me) served different purposes in each film. Whereas in Matewan (and again I wasn&amp;#039;t wholly focused on it) the music struck me more as just capturing the feel of the region, but TWBB&amp;#039;s score (by the guitarist from Radiohead I believe) served more to heighten tension and highlight the rise and fall of Daniel Plainview. Then there are the characters. Matewan as you said, has a strong ensemble, but TWBB was basically all Daniel Day Lewis all the time (though Paul Dano was effectively creepy). Also, Matewan focuses on the workers themselves and to my knowledge didn&amp;#039;t even name the owners, whereas in TWBB the lowly workers largely are ignored. Regarding the films&amp;#039; young preachers, I felt that in TWBB Dano&amp;#039;s character was used to be a sort of distorted mirror image of DDL. His church grows as does Plainview&amp;#039;s oil company, and in the end they are both men who have essentially fallen from grace, and I don&amp;#039;t feel that Matewan used the boy-preacher in the same manner. Also, Matewan was attempting to depict a specific historical event and place, whereas I felt that TWBB (based off an Upton Sinclair novel) was more allegorical in its approach by showing the self-made (and self-destructed) man. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I enjoy PT Anderson as well, but certainly he is not infallible. The ending to Magnolia, I don&amp;#039;t want to spoil it because it&amp;#039;s still a good movie, but seriously what the hell? -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I think the ending of Magnolia was the most important split second of film-making ever. That smile said everything! -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I liked how the spy in Matewan was the guy who played the warden in Shawshank. That man is good at being evil. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh come, now, Jackie.  You couldn&amp;#039;t understand the WV accent?  I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I&amp;#039;m told it&amp;#039;s largely Midwest) have been heightened since I&amp;#039;ve been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slowest. Movie. Ever. I don&amp;#039;t care how accurate it was, for me it was as slow as Last of the Mohicans.  Scratch that, it felt 12 times longer. Also, I&amp;#039;m beyond upset that they killed Hillard.  He was my favorite.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this was the movie that was the hardest for me to get through. Although, I thought it was comparable to Patriot&amp;#039;s meandering story, not so much Mohicans, which I love every time I sit down to watch it. I&amp;#039;m not the biggest Heath Ledger fan though... -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that that this movie is very evenly paced for what it is depicting. Its not like a war movie, this deals with strikes and unions. Its not like Mel Gibson is in this movie. The miners have to strike hard enough to be noticed but not enough to be considered a riot.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awh, come on now, those accents were bad or thick.  I should know, been out that way a lot with having lots of family from WV... I thought it was easy enough to understand them to be honest, but my golden rule is if you have trouble understanding put subtitles on.  :-D --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My rule is...if you can&amp;#039;t understand some words...context, context, context.  Then subtitles if you still can&amp;#039;t get it. -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way the Baldwin detectives in the movie feels very stylistic too me. They are portrayed as complete vllians with no sympathetic attributes whatsoever. The movie takes a clear good versus evil approach. Sure the Baldwin detectives may have done terrible things, but I think this movie goes too far in portraying them as evil. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had to watch this movie over two days (not because it was boring, but because I had to leave in the middle of the screening, so I finished the next day).  So during my intermission, I IMDB&amp;#039;d the film and was impressed by how critically-acclaimed the movie was.  Upon finishing the film and the readings (and regarding the lecture), I found very strong correlations between all sources.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; included all the characters mentioned in class (unlike &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;), it implemented the main themes from the readings (children working in the mines, the idea of science in industry, the role of violence, etc).  So while the movie indeed moved at a snail&amp;#039;s pace, I think we should sacrifice that for movies that work hard to achieve historical accuracy.  I also challenge the class to not mention Mel Gibson once for next week&amp;#039;s wiki comments.  We can put his name in the same bubble as we did with &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the comparison with There Will Be Blood.  These are two very different, though great, films.  (TWWB or Atonement should have won the Oscar over No Country!)  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matewan is definitely a film buff&amp;#039;s movie.  It&amp;#039;s one of those films I&amp;#039;m glad I&amp;#039;ve seen, but probably wouldn&amp;#039;t watch again.  Stunning cinematography and use of music, great acting, etc.  It effectively conveys the oppressive, claustrophobic atmosphere of a West Virginia mining town (and of the mines themselves).  To echo what I said above, I think this is the best secondary source of the past that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  Too bad we couldn&amp;#039;t have watched this before the midterm!  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thinking about Matewan, I started to get the idea that this movie was kind of like a Western, at least in the conventions it used. You have the lone lawman standing up to ruthless oppressors in Chief Hatfield. Kenehan is the outsider who rides (though by rail) into town and stirs up trouble. There are the women who are basically just there to be manipulated or ignored by the men. The final shootout that the movie builds up to is just like any number of western shootouts. You could even argue that Few Clothes functions in a similar fashion to an Indian chief. I found it interesting to see the fight for unions and labor rights in Appalachia applied to traditional aspects of the western genre. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this movie being slow but it is definitely one of the more accurate movies we&amp;#039;ve watched (company stores and the cruel/creepy bosses/Felts just to name a few). But, the music is awesome and I felt claustrophobic (esp during the opening credits) just watching this movie! -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thoght the use of the church to tell parts of the story was a very well done and really moved it along.--matt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie does a good job at recreating the rugged life of a union mineworker.  Parts of the movie aid the historical accuracy in the film.  The viewer gets an idea of how rough life was for mineworkers by observing their union meetings.  Race relations are portrayed well by showing how the Africans and Italians resented each other, but in the end in order to strengthen the union they put their differences aside for the bigger picture.  Earl Jones refers to once being a member of the wobblies, which adds context to other labor movements.  Few Clothes Johnson as a strikebreaker turned union leader is accurate, along with the portrayal of hard life in coal mining towns.  Communism is also mentioned.  &lt;br /&gt;
The movie makes it seem like all mine workers took in some form on union, when only 1/3 were unionized and when 60% of coal came from non-union mines.  Also, it would have been nice to have seen more resistance from the coal miners portrayed in the movie, such as more coal mine explosions, shootouts, and strikers that have signs with large anti corporal print.  A scene portraying something similar to the 1921 10,000 man armed march on Logan WV would have added intensity.  –James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really do love this movie. I think it pretty much hit the nail on the historical head despite some of its issues. And really, do some of these issues matter too much in a general sense? How many people even knew about Matewan before this class? I had never heard of the town, and I certainly didn’t know about the strike. It wasn’t even a successful strike, and it didn’t really turn the tide either against or in favor of unions. On the subject of its pacing, I understand why some people might find it boring because it moves slowly and there isn’t always a lot of action, but I personally think that seeing character interactions and emotional responses make for stronger movies.  This movie definitely did well in getting across the emotions of these people, and I think that’s why it’s so good. The great acting certainly helps too, and there were some really amazing performances here. I could feel their complete powerlessness, victimization, desperation, and bitter rage. Heck, it makes me want to join a union to combat corporate injustice! I do think that this is also a terrible movie in that it is so depressing. While there are certainly heroic “hell yeah!” moments where it makes you proud to be a member of the human race (the police chief Hatfield in general, Danny informing the crowd of Joe’s innocence through a sermon, Elma shooting the Baldwin-Felts jerk), there are a lot more “people are jerks, life sucks and you can’t do anything about it” parts (I think special mention goes to the murder of poor Hillard). At the very least, the movie makes it clear that whether unions are successful or not, they can provide a sense of hope and community among different people, which was maybe John Sayles’ message, as Matewan was made during the 1980s when union membership and political power was declining. --Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-30T06:16:14Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jason, I have to say I was actually kind of surprised that Kenehan brought up the subject of Scientific Management during his speech.  I think it was helpful for swaying the men to the union because I don&amp;#039;t think many men realized just how invaluable they really were to large companies.  The white men could easily have been (and were in the process of being) replaced by the Italian men and the blacks that were also arriving in Matewan.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady&amp;#039;s son (grandson?) was killed.  The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was pretty generally accurate. It&amp;#039;s not the most perfect of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched, but it did seem to present most of the different sides and opinions involved in the formation of unions and the difficulties of the time. For the record, &amp;#039;villain&amp;#039; is a side, in this case, as we are still talking about a Hollywood movie, and the corporations and secret police could be legitimately cruel. ---Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with showing how even though the men had skepticisms about joining the Union, it was necessary in order to stand up to the mining companies and to demand that they be treated better than just mere &amp;quot;equipment.&amp;quot; The movie accurately portrayed  the brutality that went along with the competition for jobs between races and ethnicities. Also, as Kenehan pointed out it was a fight between those who worked and those who didn&amp;#039;t ( bosses standing around holding guns as miners walked out of mine), it shouldn&amp;#039;t be about skin color or background because at the end of the day they&amp;#039;re all workers and they&amp;#039;re all oppressed. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven&amp;#039;t finished the movie yet, in fact I&amp;#039;m not in to it all that much.  However, from the beginning of the movie they did get right just how dirty the men got, and also that they coughed a lot from the dust and particles. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tensions between the whites/blacks, blacks/Italians and Italians/Whites were all very well-portrayed in my opinion. The attacks that Few Clothes incurred towards the beginning of the movie, as well as the tension between the Italian grandmother and white mother throughout the film were both very realistic to me. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We learned in class that the Red Scare was a real blow to the Labor Movement in the U.S and people were suspicious of anyone/anything that could be seen as promoting Communism. This is shown in the movie when Hatfield (I believe) is writing a letter to Felts and says he believes it&amp;#039;s possible Kenehan could be a Red. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a good job in portraying the problems facing the workers. Particularly I felt they did a good job dealing with the issue of the company store and company owned houses. The movie made clear the problems mine workers faced because of this arrangement and also shows the fact that the company really did have a lot of power. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie portrayed the level of desperation and volatility that was present in these areas where unions were trying to get off the ground. Before the title even came up you are treated to the hostility of the miners toward the &amp;quot;dago&amp;quot; scabs. Then there is the attack of the black miners brought in as well. The ethnic/racial tension was pretty well represented. I also felt that the taking up of arms against the company was powerful in its depiction of the desperation of the miners, and the lack of real government control in the region. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what I gathered from Tuesday&amp;#039;s lecture, I thought Matewan was an accurate portrayal of the time.  The racial tensions among the white miners, African-American miners, and the Italian immigrants were present, as was their coming together in the face of incredible adversity.  The racism, while certainly prevalent, didn&amp;#039;t overwhelm the characters.  Sayles also included the anti-Communist sentiment that plagued the labor movement.  All in all, probably the most historically accurate movie we&amp;#039;ve seen so far this semester.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a fine job capturing many large issues in a historically accurate way. The people were very religious (as seen in the readings) and seemed to rely on it for a sense of comfort in their unjust world. The dangers of the coal mines were mentioned when the lack of husbands are discussed, and it is clear in the opening scene that mining had some pretty adverse health effects and the conditions were all around terrible. It was also obvious that the miners and their families were forced into dependence on the coal company by the company’s backhanded tactics (like raising store prices while lowering the worth of company scripts). Also, the racial and ethnic tensions and how the company used those tensions against the union is covered, as well as the gap between skilled and unskilled workers (the white miners complained that those &amp;#039;&amp;#039;E-talians&amp;#039;&amp;#039; had no mining experience). They showed that the company employed spies to undermine the striking miners, and the Baldwin-Felts men were about as brutal as could be expected. Yet, they also added a bit of complexity when the men were talking before the massacre, showing that they also had their reasons for doing things. Nevertheless, while they didn’t show them poisoning children, I could see them doing it. I think one of the most important things was the depiction of the powerlessness and victimization of the miners and their families. With living conditions like that, it’s not hard to see why people turned to unions to take some control over their lives and make things better for themselves. Finally, things don’t end happily no matter how nice it would be, which reflects the real life failure of the strike. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie stayed close to the history and even refrained from ignoring the unfortunate aftermath of the events it depicts.  This is impressive since the movie is very pro-union yet it doesn’t pretend that the union fixed everything. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the scene where the black miners are told of the company policy regarding wages and wares to be quite effective. As Taylor mentioned these tactics put the workers into instant dependency on the company as most of their wages for the first month are deducted for lodging and clothes. The man going through the protocols drones on and you can see the workers just deflate. Also I felt that this scene, in addition to the whole setting up camp showed just how difficult it was to unionize and go against the owners. No wonder unions had such trouble gaining a lasting foothold. While there could be historical discrepancies in these scenes, the emotions and messages they convey are powerful to understanding the hardships of labor during this era. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners&amp;#039; treatment of miners and their families, but that&amp;#039;s excessive. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I was that woman, I probably would have done the same thing, simply because her boy just had his throat slit by those men.  She was pissed off and emotionally a wreck from not just the union stuff, but her boy being murdered.  Just my opinion though. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that history is caricatured.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Kellye and Jason, I was caught off guard when the main character was fictional.  At least in the other movies we&amp;#039;ve watched, the main characters have been based off of, and were supposed to be, the historical figure.  To see &amp;quot;Few Clothes&amp;quot; Johnson and Sheriff Hatfield in this movie you would expect the writers to use an actual member of the union to be the central figure.  I just don&amp;#039;t understand why filmmakers decide to create people instead of take an historical event and follow through with it. -Kelly Wuyscik &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive.  He&amp;#039;s the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody.  He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first &amp;quot;this is town property&amp;quot; to the agents (that was their point...) to his final &amp;quot;You people have no right to come to this town....&amp;quot;  Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain.  Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield&amp;#039;s standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to point out another Glade Plug-In Moment - When Hillard&amp;#039;s (not sure how to spell) Mom offers her extra food to the large Italian family and there is some trouble in the communication - then all of the sudden a vague gesture indicates for the white lady to sit down and POOF the Italian woman understands a compliment about her beautiful children. I agree that there is a good point here that there was a mixing of cultures, immigrants, blacks and white hillbillies, but it is cinematic effect again that transcends all language barrier that is unbelievable to me. And for the record I was a grumbler as we left the theater, I didn&amp;#039;t particularly like the movie and I&amp;#039;m not a film buff but I do know what I like and don&amp;#039;t like entertainment-wise. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it common to have young people working in the coal mines?  I think the movie showed the boy preacher, I believe his name was Danny, working in the coal mines.  ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like someone as young as Danny would not have been allowed to work in the coal mines, or would he of because he would have been cheaper labor?  Also, would a congregation really sit and listen to a 15 year old preach to them?  That just seemed a bit weird to me. Danny also didn&amp;#039;t know how to throw a baseball apparently, but that&amp;#039;s a different subject altogether. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine and Kelly, I&amp;#039;m pretty sure that at the time, especially with labor like this, that there were HS-age kids working in the mines. They are cheap labor and are probably going to be healthier for longer, also making them long-available labor. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also don&amp;#039;t think the movie did all that great of a job showing the dangers of working in a coal mine.  None of the characters had coal mining related injuries, but there was one guy in the beginning of the movie who had a bad cough, he might have had black lung from all the coal dust. ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just a minor issue, the readings led me to believe, it could have been just the one, that most miners didn&amp;#039;t leave or get out of the mines until after dark, but they definitely left and got home in the daylight, at least in the beginning. I&amp;#039;ll try to remember to update this after I finish the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the problems I had with this movie is that I feel it really simplified the race ethnic union unification. It would not be something that would happen as rapidly and easily as the movie showed, but something that would take a lot of effort over time. I also did not like the fact that after the first scene in the movie no one else was shown either sick or coughing although the damage to peoples lungs would carry on even when they were not working in the mines. A lot of scenes also felt cliche or just silly. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the reading &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children,&amp;quot; there were kids working in the coal mines with men.  They acted as &amp;quot;breaker boys,&amp;quot; collecting coal deposits and doing other menial tasks.  The significance here is that they experienced the same harsh conditions as the men, but at a greater cost because they are weaker (i.e. most die as a result).  I think Danny is representative of this youth (but keep in mind that there were younger kids working as well), but I have trouble interpreting his role as a preacher-in-training.  How much of a role did religion play with the labor union?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the part when the different groups (whites, Italians, Blacks) were playing their traditional music, which ended up harmonizing together to foreshadow in a way of unity to come.  How long did it take normally for each race to trust each other and join as one union? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest problem with &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably the lack of a larger national context. There isn’t much mention of the other parts of America going through the same struggles, which gives the sense that the strike in Matewan is somehow unique. In fact, I don’t think they even uttered the name United Mine Workers of America. Perhaps it makes the movie stronger in that it focuses on the interworkings and interrelationships of a small community, but it feels almost like Matewan exists in a bubble. Also, there is the issue of the fictional outsider, Joe Kenehan, who comes to bring his message of hope and economic justice and essentially “clean up” the town by spreading ideas of passive resistance and equality and what not. It almost plays like some Western movies (a la &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;), but not quite, as it’s clear that Joe’s efforts didn’t really succeed. There are also a lot of issues that aren’t covered, as things in Matewan didn’t end with the massacre. I didn’t feel like Danny gave much of a conclusion at the end of the movie that portrayed the continuing conflict. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to Taylor&amp;#039;s point, the only reference to a national labor movement was the fictional character Joe, who was supposed to serve as its representative.  Several times in the movie, Joe made reference to what &amp;quot;the Union&amp;quot; had to say on the issue of the strike at Matewan - how the people were supposed to wait for further instruction while the big national guys decided their next move.  Well, in the movie, the local workers of Matewan were initially very excited about the prospect of joining a union and being part of a bigger movement (eluded to when the initial leader/ Baldwin Felts spy proclaims to have been a union man all his life).  When Joe gives the workers the wait and see speech, after they all followed his advice and joined the union at great personal risk, all the workers felt betrayed and ostracized him, held meetings without him and even plotted his assassination.  Now, to what extent did a backlash actually occur against national union organizers?  I got the impression from class and the readings the union leaders were highly regarded - Buster Ratliff cites the UMWA president John L. Lewis as delivering him from slavery, so it was odd to see such local animosity against the outside union man.~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the black scabs are considering joining the union, Few Clothes likens the mining situation to slavery, largely due to the fact that the miners are made to be entirely dependent upon the company for its needs.  Referring to the start of the UMWA, Ratliff has called the mining situation slavery.  In &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot; we read accounts of the forced dependence.  Having to work for as long as they did, in the danger they did, essentially getting in return their food and housing, perhaps clothing, all subtracted from the binding scrip wages, and not being economically able to move out of the town, was akin to some conditions of slavery. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the Piece Rate system that we heard only good things about in the reading was actually not endorsed by Joe in the film. Now I am skeptical of who wrote this account. Joe&amp;#039;s machinery explanation makes more sense to me.  - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another part of the readings that I found odd in comparison to the film was the passivity of the dying coal miners in their last notes to their loved ones. In the film these miners seemed anything but passive. Religious and definitely along the same lines of waiting for their loved ones in heaven, but a little more spiteful towards the poor conditions that caused deaths and injuries. Only one man writes to his sons to never become coal miners - I felt it should have been more than that. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I didn&amp;#039;t like about the movie was how little they focused on actually being in the mines (although, for the record you couldn&amp;#039;t see a thing while they were actually in the mines so maybe it&amp;#039;s for the best.)  because the audience never got a sense of how terrible work actually was in there.  In some of the readings you can really get a sense that there was little air and that they were getting sick and trapped and injured but in the movie, more people died of gunfire than via coal mining.  It just didn&amp;#039;t seem to measure up right. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading for this week titled “Oh God, For One More Breath”: Early 20th century Tennessee Coal Miners’ Last Words, showed how religious these people were.  They constantly referred to Jesus, and how they were going to go to Heaven, and wanted to meet their family up there too. These documents reminded me of how religious the miners in the movie, especially the Italians, were with their statues of Mary, and other religious items.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading, “The Greatest Thing” Hawkins and Ratliff were talking about the revival of the UMWA by John L. Lewis and the election of FDR as the end of “slavery”. The use of slavery- era rhetoric is interesting, and I think apt. Using this language has particular prudence in the American discussion of workers rights, but was it uniquely American? I imagine that in the European context “slavery” would not be as emotive and catalytic. So, I guess that begs the question, how effective was this kind of rhetoric in America in terms of union membership and support?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering how religious mine workers were from the readings it seems off the way movie treats religion. Joe Canahan is accepted in the movie easily enough even after he states he is not religious. It seems that type of behavior would alienate and anger a lot mine workers who were very religious. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Tennessee Coal Miners&amp;#039; Last Words&amp;quot; does not directly relate, but I think it does help to further impress just how serious a job coal mining was, and why it was so important to fight for better working conditions and more rights. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading by John Spargo, he talks about the poor conditions of coal mining for the children. An example is being a coal break.  In the film Danny is a good example of a child who is too young to work in the coal mines. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To learn more about the role of religion among the child coal breakers, the author of &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children&amp;quot; asks a boy if he knows God.  The boy says, &amp;quot;God? He must work in some other mine.&amp;quot;  That is one extreme effect that coal mining has on the life of a child.  We saw the religion in the adult miners&amp;#039; last letters, but this boy is worked so much that he has no time for religious study and any family or acquaintances of his have taught him anything about God.  He&amp;#039;s not living in the greatest conditions to believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God.  Apparently the role of religion was not consistent throughout different mining towns or the ages of  miners.  In the film, the religious men can believe that the union holds a higher hope for them from their lowly, oppressed state, such that they will be delivered from the tyrant&amp;#039;s hand.  It is good to take advantage of religion for Preacher boy to get his points across to the miners without having to rat anyone out.  Besides, Danny tells the end of his Bible stories inaccurately just to make his point. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading Eugene V. Deb&amp;#039;s platform for socialism, it seems pretty clear why there was such a socialist movement in the early 20th century, evident by the kind of votes he received in 1912.  Even after the red scare, the appeal of socialist ideals was still strong for many exploited workers, such as equality for all workers, regardless of race or ethnicity.  The &amp;quot;class conflict&amp;quot; was evident in the movie too, in the form of the workers or the producers versus the non producers.  That is what was ironic about the red scare - even though the people were afraid of communists, they themselves agreed with many socialist policies. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found an article comparing the 1920s and 1980s (in a general sense, it seems) that mentions the state of unions in both periods. Basically, it seems to say that unions in the 1980s were facing the same problems as in the 1920s - layoffs, wage slashes, inability to affect policy or working conditions. Union membership declined in the 1980s, from some 25 percent of the workforce to 17 percent, much like in the 1920s when union membership dropped from 4.5 million in 1920 to 2.7 million in 1928 (according to this article, but generally it does jive with what we learned on Tuesday). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
s far as the movie being a primary source, it portrays Sid Hatfield as an archetypal cowboy.  Perhaps this because he was the sheriff.  Either way, this portrayal is romanticized and informs us more about ourselves than the historical Sid Hatfield. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was neat how they made the impression that the young boy, Danny, was the narrator in the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Ashley on how they made Danny as the narrator for the film. Most characters who narrate are much older than Danny’s age when telling a story about their past life situations. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I abandoned my boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t agree more! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holy crap. Take it back Jackie. Take it back right now. There Will Be Blood was the best movie I&amp;#039;ve seen in years, unquestionably. How can you possibly rag on a PT Anderson film?! And if we are going to nitpick actors, Will Oldham showed everyone why he should have stuck to music. He&amp;#039;s great in Old Joy, but pretty awful in this. However, Chris Cooper showed why he has been given so many solid roles in later years, and I have yet to see a James Earl Jones movie I don&amp;#039;t like. And did anyone else notice that the guy who plays Dr.Kelso on &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Scrubs&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was in this?? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, now I enjoyed Matewan, but I feel that comparisons to TWBB are mostly superficial. Yes they both are centered on extractive industries in rural areas pre WWII, and yes there is the young preacher in both films as well. But first, I have to say that the music (at least for me) served different purposes in each film. Whereas in Matewan (and again I wasn&amp;#039;t wholly focused on it) the music struck me more as just capturing the feel of the region, but TWBB&amp;#039;s score (by the guitarist from Radiohead I believe) served more to heighten tension and highlight the rise and fall of Daniel Plainview. Then there are the characters. Matewan as you said, has a strong ensemble, but TWBB was basically all Daniel Day Lewis all the time (though Paul Dano was effectively creepy). Also, Matewan focuses on the workers themselves and to my knowledge didn&amp;#039;t even name the owners, whereas in TWBB the lowly workers largely are ignored. Regarding the films&amp;#039; young preachers, I felt that in TWBB Dano&amp;#039;s character was used to be a sort of distorted mirror image of DDL. His church grows as does Plainview&amp;#039;s oil company, and in the end they are both men who have essentially fallen from grace, and I don&amp;#039;t feel that Matewan used the boy-preacher in the same manner. Also, Matewan was attempting to depict a specific historical event and place, whereas I felt that TWBB (based off an Upton Sinclair novel) was more allegorical in its approach by showing the self-made (and self-destructed) man. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I enjoy PT Anderson as well, but certainly he is not infallible. The ending to Magnolia, I don&amp;#039;t want to spoil it because it&amp;#039;s still a good movie, but seriously what the hell? -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I think the ending of Magnolia was the most important split second of film-making ever. That smile said everything! -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I liked how the spy in Matewan was the guy who played the warden in Shawshank. That man is good at being evil. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh come, now, Jackie.  You couldn&amp;#039;t understand the WV accent?  I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I&amp;#039;m told it&amp;#039;s largely Midwest) have been heightened since I&amp;#039;ve been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slowest. Movie. Ever. I don&amp;#039;t care how accurate it was, for me it was as slow as Last of the Mohicans.  Scratch that, it felt 12 times longer. Also, I&amp;#039;m beyond upset that they killed Hillard.  He was my favorite.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this was the movie that was the hardest for me to get through. Although, I thought it was comparable to Patriot&amp;#039;s meandering story, not so much Mohicans, which I love every time I sit down to watch it. I&amp;#039;m not the biggest Heath Ledger fan though... -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that that this movie is very evenly paced for what it is depicting. Its not like a war movie, this deals with strikes and unions. Its not like Mel Gibson is in this movie. The miners have to strike hard enough to be noticed but not enough to be considered a riot.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awh, come on now, those accents were bad or thick.  I should know, been out that way a lot with having lots of family from WV... I thought it was easy enough to understand them to be honest, but my golden rule is if you have trouble understanding put subtitles on.  :-D --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My rule is...if you can&amp;#039;t understand some words...context, context, context.  Then subtitles if you still can&amp;#039;t get it. -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way the Baldwin detectives in the movie feels very stylistic too me. They are portrayed as complete vllians with no sympathetic attributes whatsoever. The movie takes a clear good versus evil approach. Sure the Baldwin detectives may have done terrible things, but I think this movie goes too far in portraying them as evil. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had to watch this movie over two days (not because it was boring, but because I had to leave in the middle of the screening, so I finished the next day).  So during my intermission, I IMDB&amp;#039;d the film and was impressed by how critically-acclaimed the movie was.  Upon finishing the film and the readings (and regarding the lecture), I found very strong correlations between all sources.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; included all the characters mentioned in class (unlike &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;), it implemented the main themes from the readings (children working in the mines, the idea of science in industry, the role of violence, etc).  So while the movie indeed moved at a snail&amp;#039;s pace, I think we should sacrifice that for movies that work hard to achieve historical accuracy.  I also challenge the class to not mention Mel Gibson once for next week&amp;#039;s wiki comments.  We can put his name in the same bubble as we did with &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the comparison with There Will Be Blood.  These are two very different, though great, films.  (TWWB or Atonement should have won the Oscar over No Country!)  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matewan is definitely a film buff&amp;#039;s movie.  It&amp;#039;s one of those films I&amp;#039;m glad I&amp;#039;ve seen, but probably wouldn&amp;#039;t watch again.  Stunning cinematography and use of music, great acting, etc.  It effectively conveys the oppressive, claustrophobic atmosphere of a West Virginia mining town (and of the mines themselves).  To echo what I said above, I think this is the best secondary source of the past that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  Too bad we couldn&amp;#039;t have watched this before the midterm!  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thinking about Matewan, I started to get the idea that this movie was kind of like a Western, at least in the conventions it used. You have the lone lawman standing up to ruthless oppressors in Chief Hatfield. Kenehan is the outsider who rides (though by rail) into town and stirs up trouble. There are the women who are basically just there to be manipulated or ignored by the men. The final shootout that the movie builds up to is just like any number of western shootouts. You could even argue that Few Clothes functions in a similar fashion to an Indian chief. I found it interesting to see the fight for unions and labor rights in Appalachia applied to traditional aspects of the western genre. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this movie being slow but it is definitely one of the more accurate movies we&amp;#039;ve watched (company stores and the cruel/creepy bosses/Felts just to name a few). But, the music is awesome and I felt claustrophobic (esp during the opening credits) just watching this movie! -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thoght the use of the church to tell parts of the story was a very well done and really moved it along.--matt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie does a good job at recreating the rugged life of a union mineworker.  Parts of the movie aid the historical accuracy in the film.  The viewer gets an idea of how rough life was for mineworkers by observing their union meetings.  Race relations are portrayed well by showing how the Africans and Italians resented each other, but in the end in order to strengthen the union they put their differences aside for the bigger picture.  Earl Jones refers to once being a member of the wobblies, which adds context to other labor movements.  Few Clothes Johnson as a strikebreaker turned union leader is accurate, along with the portrayal of hard life in coal mining towns.  Communism is also mentioned.  &lt;br /&gt;
The movie makes it seem like all mine workers took in some form on union, when only 1/3 were unionized and when 60% of coal came from non-union mines.  Also, it would have been nice to have seen more resistance from the coal miners portrayed in the movie, such as more coal mine explosions, shootouts, and strikers that have signs with large anti corporal print.  A scene portraying something similar to the 1921 10,000 man armed march on Logan WV would have added intensity.  –James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really do love this movie. I think it pretty much hit the nail on the historical head despite some of its issues. And really, do some of these issues matter too much in a general sense? How many people even knew about Matewan before this class? I had never heard of the town, and I certainly didn’t know about the strike. It wasn’t even a successful strike, and it didn’t really turn the tide either against or in favor of unions. On the subject of its pacing, I understand why some people might find it boring because it moves slowly and there isn’t always a lot of action, but I personally think that seeing character interactions and emotional responses make for stronger movies.  This movie definitely did well in getting across the emotions of these people, and I think that’s why it’s so good. The great acting certainly helps too, and there were some really amazing performances here. I could feel their complete powerlessness, victimization, desperation, and bitter rage. Heck, it makes me want to join a union to combat corporate injustice! I do think that this is also a terrible movie in that it is so depressing. While there are certainly heroic “hell yeah!” moments where it makes you proud to be a member of the human race (the police chief Hatfield in general, Danny informing the crowd of Joe’s innocence through a sermon, Elma shooting the Baldwin-Felts jerk), there are a lot more “people are jerks, life sucks and you can’t do anything about it” parts (I think special mention goes to the murder of poor Hillard). At the very least, the movie makes it clear that whether unions are successful or not, they can provide a sense of hope and community among different people, which was maybe John Sayles’ message, as Matewan was made during the 1980s when union membership and political power was declining. --Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-30T05:58:37Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jason, I have to say I was actually kind of surprised that Kenehan brought up the subject of Scientific Management during his speech.  I think it was helpful for swaying the men to the union because I don&amp;#039;t think many men realized just how invaluable they really were to large companies.  The white men could easily have been (and were in the process of being) replaced by the Italian men and the blacks that were also arriving in Matewan.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady&amp;#039;s son (grandson?) was killed.  The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was pretty generally accurate. It&amp;#039;s not the most perfect of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched, but it did seem to present most of the different sides and opinions involved in the formation of unions and the difficulties of the time. For the record, &amp;#039;villain&amp;#039; is a side, in this case, as we are still talking about a Hollywood movie, and the corporations and secret police could be legitimately cruel. ---Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with showing how even though the men had skepticisms about joining the Union, it was necessary in order to stand up to the mining companies and to demand that they be treated better than just mere &amp;quot;equipment.&amp;quot; The movie accurately portrayed  the brutality that went along with the competition for jobs between races and ethnicities. Also, as Kenehan pointed out it was a fight between those who worked and those who didn&amp;#039;t ( bosses standing around holding guns as miners walked out of mine), it shouldn&amp;#039;t be about skin color or background because at the end of the day they&amp;#039;re all workers and they&amp;#039;re all oppressed. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven&amp;#039;t finished the movie yet, in fact I&amp;#039;m not in to it all that much.  However, from the beginning of the movie they did get right just how dirty the men got, and also that they coughed a lot from the dust and particles. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tensions between the whites/blacks, blacks/Italians and Italians/Whites were all very well-portrayed in my opinion. The attacks that Few Clothes incurred towards the beginning of the movie, as well as the tension between the Italian grandmother and white mother throughout the film were both very realistic to me. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We learned in class that the Red Scare was a real blow to the Labor Movement in the U.S and people were suspicious of anyone/anything that could be seen as promoting Communism. This is shown in the movie when Hatfield (I believe) is writing a letter to Felts and says he believes it&amp;#039;s possible Kenehan could be a Red. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a good job in portraying the problems facing the workers. Particularly I felt they did a good job dealing with the issue of the company store and company owned houses. The movie made clear the problems mine workers faced because of this arrangement and also shows the fact that the company really did have a lot of power. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie portrayed the level of desperation and volatility that was present in these areas where unions were trying to get off the ground. Before the title even came up you are treated to the hostility of the miners toward the &amp;quot;dago&amp;quot; scabs. Then there is the attack of the black miners brought in as well. The ethnic/racial tension was pretty well represented. I also felt that the taking up of arms against the company was powerful in its depiction of the desperation of the miners, and the lack of real government control in the region. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what I gathered from Tuesday&amp;#039;s lecture, I thought Matewan was an accurate portrayal of the time.  The racial tensions among the white miners, African-American miners, and the Italian immigrants were present, as was their coming together in the face of incredible adversity.  The racism, while certainly prevalent, didn&amp;#039;t overwhelm the characters.  Sayles also included the anti-Communist sentiment that plagued the labor movement.  All in all, probably the most historically accurate movie we&amp;#039;ve seen so far this semester.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a fine job capturing many large issues in a historically accurate way. The people were very religious (as seen in the readings) and seemed to rely on it for a sense of comfort in their unjust world. The dangers of the coal mines were mentioned when the lack of husbands are discussed, and it is clear in the opening scene that mining had some pretty adverse health effects and the conditions were all around terrible. It was also obvious that the miners and their families were forced into dependence on the coal company by the company’s backhanded tactics (like raising store prices while lowering the worth of company scripts). Also, the racial and ethnic tensions and how the company used those tensions against the union is covered, as well as the gap between skilled and unskilled workers (the white miners complained that those &amp;#039;&amp;#039;E-talians&amp;#039;&amp;#039; had no mining experience). They showed that the company employed spies to undermine the striking miners, and the Baldwin-Felts men were about as brutal as could be expected. Yet, they also added a bit of complexity when the men were talking before the massacre, showing that they also had their reasons for doing things. Nevertheless, while they didn’t show them poisoning children, I could see them doing it. I think one of the most important things was the depiction of the powerlessness and victimization of the miners and their families. With living conditions like that, it’s not hard to see why people turned to unions to take some control over their lives and make things better for themselves. Finally, things don’t end happily no matter how nice it would be, which reflects the real life failure of the strike. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie stayed close to the history and even refrained from ignoring the unfortunate aftermath of the events it depicts.  This is impressive since the movie is very pro-union yet it doesn’t pretend that the union fixed everything. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the scene where the black miners are told of the company policy regarding wages and wares to be quite effective. As Taylor mentioned these tactics put the workers into instant dependency on the company as most of their wages for the first month are deducted for lodging and clothes. The man going through the protocols drones on and you can see the workers just deflate. Also I felt that this scene, in addition to the whole setting up camp showed just how difficult it was to unionize and go against the owners. No wonder unions had such trouble gaining a lasting foothold. While there could be historical discrepancies in these scenes, the emotions and messages they convey are powerful to understanding the hardships of labor during this era. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners&amp;#039; treatment of miners and their families, but that&amp;#039;s excessive. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I was that woman, I probably would have done the same thing, simply because her boy just had his throat slit by those men.  She was pissed off and emotionally a wreck from not just the union stuff, but her boy being murdered.  Just my opinion though. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that history is caricatured.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Kellye and Jason, I was caught off guard when the main character was fictional.  At least in the other movies we&amp;#039;ve watched, the main characters have been based off of, and were supposed to be, the historical figure.  To see &amp;quot;Few Clothes&amp;quot; Johnson and Sheriff Hatfield in this movie you would expect the writers to use an actual member of the union to be the central figure.  I just don&amp;#039;t understand why filmmakers decide to create people instead of take an historical event and follow through with it. -Kelly Wuyscik &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive.  He&amp;#039;s the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody.  He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first &amp;quot;this is town property&amp;quot; to the agents (that was their point...) to his final &amp;quot;You people have no right to come to this town....&amp;quot;  Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain.  Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield&amp;#039;s standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to point out another Glade Plug-In Moment - When Hillard&amp;#039;s (not sure how to spell) Mom offers her extra food to the large Italian family and there is some trouble in the communication - then all of the sudden a vague gesture indicates for the white lady to sit down and POOF the Italian woman understands a compliment about her beautiful children. I agree that there is a good point here that there was a mixing of cultures, immigrants, blacks and white hillbillies, but it is cinematic effect again that transcends all language barrier that is unbelievable to me. And for the record I was a grumbler as we left the theater, I didn&amp;#039;t particularly like the movie and I&amp;#039;m not a film buff but I do know what I like and don&amp;#039;t like entertainment-wise. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it common to have young people working in the coal mines?  I think the movie showed the boy preacher, I believe his name was Danny, working in the coal mines.  ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like someone as young as Danny would not have been allowed to work in the coal mines, or would he of because he would have been cheaper labor?  Also, would a congregation really sit and listen to a 15 year old preach to them?  That just seemed a bit weird to me. Danny also didn&amp;#039;t know how to throw a baseball apparently, but that&amp;#039;s a different subject altogether. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine and Kelly, I&amp;#039;m pretty sure that at the time, especially with labor like this, that there were HS-age kids working in the mines. They are cheap labor and are probably going to be healthier for longer, also making them long-available labor. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also don&amp;#039;t think the movie did all that great of a job showing the dangers of working in a coal mine.  None of the characters had coal mining related injuries, but there was one guy in the beginning of the movie who had a bad cough, he might have had black lung from all the coal dust. ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just a minor issue, the readings led me to believe, it could have been just the one, that most miners didn&amp;#039;t leave or get out of the mines until after dark, but they definitely left and got home in the daylight, at least in the beginning. I&amp;#039;ll try to remember to update this after I finish the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the problems I had with this movie is that I feel it really simplified the race ethnic union unification. It would not be something that would happen as rapidly and easily as the movie showed, but something that would take a lot of effort over time. I also did not like the fact that after the first scene in the movie no one else was shown either sick or coughing although the damage to peoples lungs would carry on even when they were not working in the mines. A lot of scenes also felt cliche or just silly. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the reading &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children,&amp;quot; there were kids working in the coal mines with men.  They acted as &amp;quot;breaker boys,&amp;quot; collecting coal deposits and doing other menial tasks.  The significance here is that they experienced the same harsh conditions as the men, but at a greater cost because they are weaker (i.e. most die as a result).  I think Danny is representative of this youth (but keep in mind that there were younger kids working as well), but I have trouble interpreting his role as a preacher-in-training.  How much of a role did religion play with the labor union?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the part when the different groups (whites, Italians, Blacks) were playing their traditional music, which ended up harmonizing together to foreshadow in a way of unity to come.  How long did it take normally for each race to trust each other and join as one union? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest problem with &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably the lack of a larger national context. There isn’t much mention of the other parts of America going through the same struggles, which gives the sense that the strike in Matewan is somehow unique. In fact, I don’t think they even uttered the name United Mine Workers of America. Perhaps it makes the movie stronger in that it focuses on the interworkings and interrelationships of a small community, but it feels almost like Matewan exists in a bubble. Also, there is the issue of the fictional outsider, Joe Kenehan, who comes to bring his message of hope and economic justice and essentially “clean up” the town by spreading ideas of passive resistance and equality and what not. It almost plays like some Western movies (a la &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;), but not quite, as it’s clear that Joe’s efforts didn’t really succeed. There are also a lot of issues that aren’t covered, as things in Matewan didn’t end with the massacre. I didn’t feel like Danny gave much of a conclusion at the end of the movie that portrayed the continuing conflict. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to Taylor&amp;#039;s point, the only reference to a national labor movement was the fictional character Joe, who was supposed to serve as its representative.  Several times in the movie, Joe made reference to what &amp;quot;the Union&amp;quot; had to say on the issue of the strike at Matewan - how the people were supposed to wait for further instruction while the big national guys decided their next move.  Well, in the movie, the local workers of Matewan were initially very excited about the prospect of joining a union and being part of a bigger movement (eluded to when the initial leader/ Baldwin Felts spy proclaims to have been a union man all his life).  When Joe gives the workers the wait and see speech, after they all followed his advice and joined the union at great personal risk, all the workers felt betrayed and ostracized him, held meetings without him and even plotted his assassination.  Now, to what extent did a backlash actually occur against national union organizers?  I got the impression from class and the readings the union leaders were highly regarded - Buster Ratliff cites the UMWA president John L. Lewis as delivering him from slavery, so it was odd to see such local animosity against the outside union man.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the black scabs are considering joining the union, Few Clothes likens the mining situation to slavery, largely due to the fact that the miners are made to be entirely dependent upon the company for its needs.  Referring to the start of the UMWA, Ratliff has called the mining situation slavery.  In &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot; we read accounts of the forced dependence.  Having to work for as long as they did, in the danger they did, essentially getting in return their food and housing, perhaps clothing, all subtracted from the binding scrip wages, and not being economically able to move out of the town, was akin to some conditions of slavery. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the Piece Rate system that we heard only good things about in the reading was actually not endorsed by Joe in the film. Now I am skeptical of who wrote this account. Joe&amp;#039;s machinery explanation makes more sense to me.  - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another part of the readings that I found odd in comparison to the film was the passivity of the dying coal miners in their last notes to their loved ones. In the film these miners seemed anything but passive. Religious and definitely along the same lines of waiting for their loved ones in heaven, but a little more spiteful towards the poor conditions that caused deaths and injuries. Only one man writes to his sons to never become coal miners - I felt it should have been more than that. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I didn&amp;#039;t like about the movie was how little they focused on actually being in the mines (although, for the record you couldn&amp;#039;t see a thing while they were actually in the mines so maybe it&amp;#039;s for the best.)  because the audience never got a sense of how terrible work actually was in there.  In some of the readings you can really get a sense that there was little air and that they were getting sick and trapped and injured but in the movie, more people died of gunfire than via coal mining.  It just didn&amp;#039;t seem to measure up right. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading for this week titled “Oh God, For One More Breath”: Early 20th century Tennessee Coal Miners’ Last Words, showed how religious these people were.  They constantly referred to Jesus, and how they were going to go to Heaven, and wanted to meet their family up there too. These documents reminded me of how religious the miners in the movie, especially the Italians, were with their statues of Mary, and other religious items.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading, “The Greatest Thing” Hawkins and Ratliff were talking about the revival of the UMWA by John L. Lewis and the election of FDR as the end of “slavery”. The use of slavery- era rhetoric is interesting, and I think apt. Using this language has particular prudence in the American discussion of workers rights, but was it uniquely American? I imagine that in the European context “slavery” would not be as emotive and catalytic. So, I guess that begs the question, how effective was this kind of rhetoric in America in terms of union membership and support?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering how religious mine workers were from the readings it seems off the way movie treats religion. Joe Canahan is accepted in the movie easily enough even after he states he is not religious. It seems that type of behavior would alienate and anger a lot mine workers who were very religious. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Tennessee Coal Miners&amp;#039; Last Words&amp;quot; does not directly relate, but I think it does help to further impress just how serious a job coal mining was, and why it was so important to fight for better working conditions and more rights. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading by John Spargo, he talks about the poor conditions of coal mining for the children. An example is being a coal break.  In the film Danny is a good example of a child who is too young to work in the coal mines. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To learn more about the role of religion among the child coal breakers, the author of &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children&amp;quot; asks a boy if he knows God.  The boy says, &amp;quot;God? He must work in some other mine.&amp;quot;  That is one extreme effect that coal mining has on the life of a child.  We saw the religion in the adult miners&amp;#039; last letters, but this boy is worked so much that he has no time for religious study and any family or acquaintances of his have taught him anything about God.  He&amp;#039;s not living in the greatest conditions to believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God.  Apparently the role of religion was not consistent throughout different mining towns or the ages of  miners.  In the film, the religious men can believe that the union holds a higher hope for them from their lowly, oppressed state, such that they will be delivered from the tyrant&amp;#039;s hand.  It is good to take advantage of religion for Preacher boy to get his points across to the miners without having to rat anyone out.  Besides, Danny tells the end of his Bible stories inaccurately just to make his point. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found an article comparing the 1920s and 1980s (in a general sense, it seems) that mentions the state of unions in both periods. Basically, it seems to say that unions in the 1980s were facing the same problems as in the 1920s - layoffs, wage slashes, inability to affect policy or working conditions. Union membership declined in the 1980s, from some 25 percent of the workforce to 17 percent, much like in the 1920s when union membership dropped from 4.5 million in 1920 to 2.7 million in 1928 (according to this article, but generally it does jive with what we learned on Tuesday). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
s far as the movie being a primary source, it portrays Sid Hatfield as an archetypal cowboy.  Perhaps this because he was the sheriff.  Either way, this portrayal is romanticized and informs us more about ourselves than the historical Sid Hatfield. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was neat how they made the impression that the young boy, Danny, was the narrator in the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Ashley on how they made Danny as the narrator for the film. Most characters who narrate are much older than Danny’s age when telling a story about their past life situations. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I abandoned my boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t agree more! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holy crap. Take it back Jackie. Take it back right now. There Will Be Blood was the best movie I&amp;#039;ve seen in years, unquestionably. How can you possibly rag on a PT Anderson film?! And if we are going to nitpick actors, Will Oldham showed everyone why he should have stuck to music. He&amp;#039;s great in Old Joy, but pretty awful in this. However, Chris Cooper showed why he has been given so many solid roles in later years, and I have yet to see a James Earl Jones movie I don&amp;#039;t like. And did anyone else notice that the guy who plays Dr.Kelso on &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Scrubs&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was in this?? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, now I enjoyed Matewan, but I feel that comparisons to TWBB are mostly superficial. Yes they both are centered on extractive industries in rural areas pre WWII, and yes there is the young preacher in both films as well. But first, I have to say that the music (at least for me) served different purposes in each film. Whereas in Matewan (and again I wasn&amp;#039;t wholly focused on it) the music struck me more as just capturing the feel of the region, but TWBB&amp;#039;s score (by the guitarist from Radiohead I believe) served more to heighten tension and highlight the rise and fall of Daniel Plainview. Then there are the characters. Matewan as you said, has a strong ensemble, but TWBB was basically all Daniel Day Lewis all the time (though Paul Dano was effectively creepy). Also, Matewan focuses on the workers themselves and to my knowledge didn&amp;#039;t even name the owners, whereas in TWBB the lowly workers largely are ignored. Regarding the films&amp;#039; young preachers, I felt that in TWBB Dano&amp;#039;s character was used to be a sort of distorted mirror image of DDL. His church grows as does Plainview&amp;#039;s oil company, and in the end they are both men who have essentially fallen from grace, and I don&amp;#039;t feel that Matewan used the boy-preacher in the same manner. Also, Matewan was attempting to depict a specific historical event and place, whereas I felt that TWBB (based off an Upton Sinclair novel) was more allegorical in its approach by showing the self-made (and self-destructed) man. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I enjoy PT Anderson as well, but certainly he is not infallible. The ending to Magnolia, I don&amp;#039;t want to spoil it because it&amp;#039;s still a good movie, but seriously what the hell? -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I think the ending of Magnolia was the most important split second of film-making ever. That smile said everything! -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I liked how the spy in Matewan was the guy who played the warden in Shawshank. That man is good at being evil. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh come, now, Jackie.  You couldn&amp;#039;t understand the WV accent?  I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I&amp;#039;m told it&amp;#039;s largely Midwest) have been heightened since I&amp;#039;ve been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slowest. Movie. Ever. I don&amp;#039;t care how accurate it was, for me it was as slow as Last of the Mohicans.  Scratch that, it felt 12 times longer. Also, I&amp;#039;m beyond upset that they killed Hillard.  He was my favorite.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this was the movie that was the hardest for me to get through. Although, I thought it was comparable to Patriot&amp;#039;s meandering story, not so much Mohicans, which I love every time I sit down to watch it. I&amp;#039;m not the biggest Heath Ledger fan though... -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that that this movie is very evenly paced for what it is depicting. Its not like a war movie, this deals with strikes and unions. Its not like Mel Gibson is in this movie. The miners have to strike hard enough to be noticed but not enough to be considered a riot.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awh, come on now, those accents were bad or thick.  I should know, been out that way a lot with having lots of family from WV... I thought it was easy enough to understand them to be honest, but my golden rule is if you have trouble understanding put subtitles on.  :-D --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way the Baldwin detectives in the movie feels very stylistic too me. They are portrayed as complete vllians with no sympathetic attributes whatsoever. The movie takes a clear good versus evil approach. Sure the Baldwin detectives may have done terrible things, but I think this movie goes too far in portraying them as evil. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had to watch this movie over two days (not because it was boring, but because I had to leave in the middle of the screening, so I finished the next day).  So during my intermission, I IMDB&amp;#039;d the film and was impressed by how critically-acclaimed the movie was.  Upon finishing the film and the readings (and regarding the lecture), I found very strong correlations between all sources.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; included all the characters mentioned in class (unlike &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;), it implemented the main themes from the readings (children working in the mines, the idea of science in industry, the role of violence, etc).  So while the movie indeed moved at a snail&amp;#039;s pace, I think we should sacrifice that for movies that work hard to achieve historical accuracy.  I also challenge the class to not mention Mel Gibson once for next week&amp;#039;s wiki comments.  We can put his name in the same bubble as we did with &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the comparison with There Will Be Blood.  These are two very different, though great, films.  (TWWB or Atonement should have won the Oscar over No Country!)  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matewan is definitely a film buff&amp;#039;s movie.  It&amp;#039;s one of those films I&amp;#039;m glad I&amp;#039;ve seen, but probably wouldn&amp;#039;t watch again.  Stunning cinematography and use of music, great acting, etc.  It effectively conveys the oppressive, claustrophobic atmosphere of a West Virginia mining town (and of the mines themselves).  To echo what I said above, I think this is the best secondary source of the past that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  Too bad we couldn&amp;#039;t have watched this before the midterm!  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thinking about Matewan, I started to get the idea that this movie was kind of like a Western, at least in the conventions it used. You have the lone lawman standing up to ruthless oppressors in Chief Hatfield. Kenehan is the outsider who rides (though by rail) into town and stirs up trouble. There are the women who are basically just there to be manipulated or ignored by the men. The final shootout that the movie builds up to is just like any number of western shootouts. You could even argue that Few Clothes functions in a similar fashion to an Indian chief. I found it interesting to see the fight for unions and labor rights in Appalachia applied to traditional aspects of the western genre. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this movie being slow but it is definitely one of the more accurate movies we&amp;#039;ve watched (company stores and the cruel/creepy bosses/Felts just to name a few). But, the music is awesome and I felt claustrophobic (esp during the opening credits) just watching this movie! -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thoght the use of the church to tell parts of the story was a very well done and really moved it along.--matt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really do love this movie. I think it pretty much hit the nail on the historical head despite some of its issues. And really, do some of these issues matter too much in a general sense? How many people even knew about Matewan before this class? I had never heard of the town, and I certainly didn’t know about the strike. It wasn’t even a successful strike, and it didn’t really turn the tide either against or in favor of unions. On the subject of its pacing, I understand why some people might find it boring because it moves slowly and there isn’t always a lot of action, but I personally think that seeing character interactions and emotional responses make for stronger movies.  This movie definitely did well in getting across the emotions of these people, and I think that’s why it’s so good. The great acting certainly helps too, and there were some really amazing performances here. I could feel their complete powerlessness, victimization, desperation, and bitter rage. Heck, it makes me want to join a union to combat corporate injustice! I do think that this is also a terrible movie in that it is so depressing. While there are certainly heroic “hell yeah!” moments where it makes you proud to be a member of the human race (the police chief Hatfield in general, Danny informing the crowd of Joe’s innocence through a sermon, Elma shooting the Baldwin-Felts jerk), there are a lot more “people are jerks, life sucks and you can’t do anything about it” parts (I think special mention goes to the murder of poor Hillard). At the very least, the movie makes it clear that whether unions are successful or not, they can provide a sense of hope and community among different people, which was maybe John Sayles’ message, as Matewan was made during the 1980s when union membership and political power was declining. --Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-29T04:12:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady&amp;#039;s son (grandson?) was killed.  The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was pretty generally accurate. It&amp;#039;s not the most perfect of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched, but it did seem to present most of the different sides and opinions involved in the formation of unions and the difficulties of the time. For the record, &amp;#039;villain&amp;#039; is a side, in this case, as we are still talking about a Hollywood movie, and the corporations and secret police could be legitimately cruel. ---Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners&amp;#039; treatment of miners and their families, but that&amp;#039;s excessive. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that history is caricatured.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive.  He&amp;#039;s the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody.  He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first &amp;quot;this is town property&amp;quot; to the agents (that was their point...) to his final &amp;quot;You people have no right to come to this town....&amp;quot;  Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain.  Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield&amp;#039;s standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the black scabs are considering joining the union, Few Clothes likens the mining situation to slavery, largely due to the fact that the miners are made to be entirely dependent upon the company for its needs.  Referring to the start of the UMWA, Ratliff has called the mining situation slavery.  In &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot; we read accounts of the forced dependence.  Having to work for as long as they did, in the danger they did, essentially getting in return their food and housing, perhaps clothing, all subtracted from the binding scrip wages, and not being economically able to move out of the town, was akin to some conditions of slavery. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I abandoned my boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t agree more! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh come, now, Jackie.  You couldn&amp;#039;t understand the WV accent?  I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I&amp;#039;m told it&amp;#039;s largely Midwest) have been heightened since I&amp;#039;ve been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-29T03:27:01Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady&amp;#039;s son (grandson?) was killed.  The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners&amp;#039; treatment of miners and their families, but that&amp;#039;s excessive. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that history is caricatured.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive.  He&amp;#039;s the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody.  He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first &amp;quot;this is town property&amp;quot; to the agents (that was their point...) to his final &amp;quot;You people have no right to come to this town....&amp;quot;  Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain.  Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield&amp;#039;s standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I abandoned my boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t agree more! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh come, now, Jackie.  You couldn&amp;#039;t understand the WV accent?  I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I&amp;#039;m told it&amp;#039;s largely Midwest) have been heightened since I&amp;#039;ve been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-29T03:09:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady&amp;#039;s son (grandson?) was killed.  The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners&amp;#039; treatment of miners and their families, but that&amp;#039;s excessive. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that history is caricatured.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I abandoned my boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t agree more! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh come, now, Jackie.  You couldn&amp;#039;t understand the WV accent?  I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I&amp;#039;m told it&amp;#039;s largely Midwest) have been heightened since I&amp;#039;ve been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-29T03:03:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady&amp;#039;s son (grandson?) was killed.  The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners&amp;#039; treatment of miners and their families, but that&amp;#039;s excessive. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that history is caricatured.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I abandoned my boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t agree more! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-23T03:22:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...The names were right.  And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;d like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target.  I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West.  Also, even though the Clanton family didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;rustle&amp;quot; the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Problems of the Old West&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 198).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of my favorite moments was when Wyatt buffaloed one of the Tombstone Cowboys. It was actually accurate, as we mentioned Earp’s love of pistol whipping people in class. And it was totally awesome! --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The little details are touchingly accurate.  In the church scene, a pair of American flags is visible, displaying the correct star configuration for the early 1880s. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona&amp;#039;s heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West?  Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then.  Were hospitals built?  If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong.  Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of &amp;#039;hero&amp;#039; in class on Tuesday, but that&amp;#039;s how he is portrayed in the film.  Also... I don&amp;#039;t remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier.  Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone?  This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have &amp;#039;heard&amp;#039; of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie.  It was very stereotypical of westerns.  It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn&amp;#039;t even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don&amp;#039;t understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton&amp;#039;s are immediately made the villains and the Earp&amp;#039;s are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn&amp;#039;t a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen&amp;#039;t die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt&amp;#039;s pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt just wanted to play a nice game of honest poker and he basically quit after finding out about Chihuahua helping his rivals was just cute. He totally seemed like such an upstanding guy that he would never put up with that. He easily wins over the prettiest, smartest girl, doesn&amp;#039;t take up with the prostitute, and is only trying to avenge his family. What a vision of the Old West! -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wyatt Earp: The Classic Western Hero. He’s just a noble, avenging passerby who comes in to clean up an immoral and violent little town and seek justice for his brother. After he’s done what he set out to do he leaves as quickly as he swept in. He’s played as the traditional stock cowboy hero that can be seen in most Westerns. The problem is the real Wyatt Earp wasn’t much like that. He was a drinking, gambling vagrant who could be just as immoral as the towns he was acting as marshal for. But it’s Henry Fonda, and who wants to see wholesome Henry Fonda as a scoundrel? I&amp;#039;m scarred enough from seeing Gregory Peck in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Boys from Brazil&amp;#039;&amp;#039;… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What was up with Clementine and Chihuahua? Are they based on the various ladies we talked about in class? It’s no wonder Chihuahua died though, with a dentist (at least that’s what Doc Holliday really was) doing surgery on her. And the ages of the brothers were all messed up. The movie made Wyatt seem like the oldest, but James was actually the oldest. And where was Warren Earp, the youngest brother? Also, James wasn’t killed. In fact, Morgan was the only brother who got killed. It’s kind of terrible actually, because the inside slip that comes with my DVD says that the real life feuding was “initially set in motion by the slaying of James Earp, Wyatt’s younger brother.” Yeah… okay. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One major issue I had with the character of Clementine is that she didn&amp;#039;t look at all like she had just traveled from Boston to Arizona.  She was completely put together and clean-cut and was also beyond thrilled to have arrived.  I feel that for a young woman to make that trip on her own would have been completely unrealistic.  With the amount of baggage she had with her (which, yes most women do tend to bring when packing for trips) that trip solo would have been nearly impossible.  Especially to keep up her physical appearance. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Century of Dishonor&amp;#039;&amp;#039;). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;were&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the &amp;quot;Indian Department&amp;quot; help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage&amp;quot; at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as &amp;quot;naturally warlike&amp;quot; so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading &amp;quot;Major Problems in the American West&amp;quot; does mention vigilante action taken up for cattle rustling, and mentions Roosevelt&amp;#039;s advocacy. We definitely see plenty of vigilante action somewhat connected to rustling. The reading on women in the West makes conditions seem totally unfavorable and a rough life. It seems wrong that Clementine would be so clean, even-tempered and patient after such a long, roundabout, and seemingly dangerous journey. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The choice to cast a white woman, Linda Darnell, as the Hispanic Chihuahua (nice name) seems to reflect a general trend in Hollywood at this time.  Dr. McClurken mentioned in class that Gone With the Wind was unusual in that it featured African-American actors instead of white actors in blackface.  That being said, I wasn&amp;#039;t at all surprised to see an Anglo-American with dark hair playing a Hispanic woman in My Darling Clementine.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This seems like the type of movie that was created for sheer entertainment purposes and not actually to retell a historical event.  Now, I&amp;#039;m not sure if that is an accurate assumption or not, but if so, then I&amp;#039;m not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;too concerned&amp;#039;&amp;#039; with what it relayed.  That being said, I definitely agree with Jason that it is a damaging portrayal of the American west and a group of men that actually lived the lifestyle.  You learn pretty much nothing about Wyatt Earp, except that he had three brothers and was a Marshall, and you learn only the names of pretty much everyone else involved in his life.  It&amp;#039;s an unrealistic depiction that shaped the way most Americans thought the west to be.  But, as we&amp;#039;ve learned this semester, it&amp;#039;s not the only movie to do that. And I also really like the movie so I can&amp;#039;t bash it too much.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie wasn&amp;#039;t really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn&amp;#039;t about her?! -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing.  In this film and in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (not sure about &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out.  I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling).  So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t understand why the director would change so many details about the shoot out. When we talked about it in class it seems to me the real thing would have been dramatic enough to make into to a film. There were the two sides, the hatred between the two sides, the love triangle, the event that sparks the need for the fight, and the eventual showdown. Why make up other people and events? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My research project is on The Searchers, another Ford Western, and in many texts Ford is lauded for bringing his sensibilities from the silent film era where he started into the more modern film era. I was curious if anyone picked up any techniques that were rooted in silent era practices? I don&amp;#039;t really have any exposure to silent films so I was curious if anyone was and picked up on anything?- B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did wonder who ran/started the Oriental Saloon, when we clearly saw the sign but no trace of &amp;quot;Orientals.&amp;quot; Even the drunk Indian was seen in poor light and could have been any race from where I was sitting. I imagine this was purposefully done. I would like to think that it was because they did not want to show an actual Native American drunk and being shamed and kicked out of town, however, we know that Hollywood often has few qualms. Perhaps it was to maintain the lack of focus on anyone other than the whites? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine: Wasn&amp;#039;t this movie based off of the book, which was admitted to be entirely fiction?  I think the directors would be more likely to  use this known book with romance and drama (yes?) for their film in 1946 than do a bunch of research to find out what Earp&amp;#039;s true biography was and attempt any accuracy beyond the few names and general ideas that they used.  And whether or not they knew the facts about the shootout, one must admit that the film&amp;#039;s shootout out in the corral, with the fences to climb or dodge behind and the freaked-out horses to avoid, a long scene with strategy and multiple dramatic deaths, is much more entertaining to watch than 30 seconds of a 30 shots flying in a vacant lot with three &amp;quot;bad guys&amp;quot; dead and two who flee. However, I have never seen &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, so I cannot compare them.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week.  Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne&amp;#039;s westerns don&amp;#039;t lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don&amp;#039;t include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I&amp;#039;m guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it&amp;#039;s just a thought. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I&amp;#039;ve been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone&amp;#039;s style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn&amp;#039;t even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt, I think she was supposed to. From her name and the fact that at one point, she called out &amp;quot;Mamacita!&amp;quot; (Mexican word for &amp;quot;little mother.&amp;quot; Note that it&amp;#039;s the Mexican Spanish. Spaniards would used &amp;quot;mamita.&amp;quot;) when she threw the bag of gold that Doc threw at her when he rushed off. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt, and Lauren, I don&amp;#039;t think Chihuahua is supposed to be Latino at all.  The name is just the name she has as an entertainer or whatever she can be classified as.  I don&amp;#039;t think it would have been uncommon to choose a Spanish word for a name (whether she or her employer did).  Chihuahua is actually a large state in northern Mexico.  Such a name might be considered exotic to a white man, although the girl isn&amp;#039;t (thus making her more desirable).  Also, just because she used &amp;quot;mamacita&amp;quot; doesn&amp;#039;t mean she has to be Latino.  We use Spanish expressions sometimes, too, and we&amp;#039;re not Latino!  And this is not the only instance in a film that a character is given only a first name because that&amp;#039;s all the only one mentioned in the movie! -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being a big fan of Tombstone really makes it hard for me to see this movie in a good way. Although Tombstone get several things wrong as well it portrayed the actual characters and situation far better than My Darling Clementine. Also the Doc Holliday in My Darling Clementine can never compare to Val Kilmers Doc Holliday from Tombstone. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. I have seen parts of old westerns before and so I had some knowledge of the style but I was expecting something more related to what we talked about in class on Tues. By the end of the movie I was very disappointed and couldn&amp;#039;t really understand what was supposed to be the plot, there were so many side plots. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice the barbershop sign? Apparently, the barber and the dentist are the same man. While it’s certainly good for comic relief, I wonder if people actually did that in Western towns. I wouldn’t be surprised, as it seems like a good way to make more money and consolidate things in a small town. But really, what luck, two of the worst moments to be sitting in a bad chair: when you’re getting a shave and when you’re getting your teeth pulled. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve seen more than my fair share of Westerns in the last few months, and I gotta ask: am I the only one who wants to take up drinking whiskey after watching these movies? I am curious if these movies influenced whiskey consumption in the same way that cigarette use in older films likely made cigarettes &amp;quot;cool&amp;quot;? - B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although we lampooned it a bit in class, I have to say that I much prefer Deadwood to this kind of Western.  Sensationalize the old West though it may, at least Deadwood is a phenomenal show.  And the very flawed Tombstone is entertaining sheerly because it is one of the cheesiest films ever made (so, so nineties).  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken in a vacuum, devoid of historical knowledge, comparison to other Wyatt Earp stories, or any other silly distractions, My Darling Clementine is great and entertaining, but going into the movie with the detailed character list we picked up in class, I was pretty disappointed  that the story didn&amp;#039;t stick closer to the truth.  The history was much more complicated, but so much more interesting.  It would have taken more than 90 minutes to tell the story as it happened, but we&amp;#039;ve seen Gone With the Wind, so we know America will pay to sit still for three hours and gobble up old stories. - JT Newcomb&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-23T03:18:52Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...The names were right.  And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;d like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target.  I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West.  Also, even though the Clanton family didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;rustle&amp;quot; the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Problems of the Old West&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 198).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of my favorite moments was when Wyatt buffaloed one of the Tombstone Cowboys. It was actually accurate, as we mentioned Earp’s love of pistol whipping people in class. And it was totally awesome! --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The little details are touchingly accurate.  In the church scene, a pair of American flags is visible, displaying the correct star configuration for the early 1880s. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona&amp;#039;s heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West?  Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then.  Were hospitals built?  If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong.  Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of &amp;#039;hero&amp;#039; in class on Tuesday, but that&amp;#039;s how he is portrayed in the film.  Also... I don&amp;#039;t remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier.  Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone?  This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have &amp;#039;heard&amp;#039; of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie.  It was very stereotypical of westerns.  It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn&amp;#039;t even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don&amp;#039;t understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton&amp;#039;s are immediately made the villains and the Earp&amp;#039;s are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn&amp;#039;t a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen&amp;#039;t die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt&amp;#039;s pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt just wanted to play a nice game of honest poker and he basically quit after finding out about Chihuahua helping his rivals was just cute. He totally seemed like such an upstanding guy that he would never put up with that. He easily wins over the prettiest, smartest girl, doesn&amp;#039;t take up with the prostitute, and is only trying to avenge his family. What a vision of the Old West! -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wyatt Earp: The Classic Western Hero. He’s just a noble, avenging passerby who comes in to clean up an immoral and violent little town and seek justice for his brother. After he’s done what he set out to do he leaves as quickly as he swept in. He’s played as the traditional stock cowboy hero that can be seen in most Westerns. The problem is the real Wyatt Earp wasn’t much like that. He was a drinking, gambling vagrant who could be just as immoral as the towns he was acting as marshal for. But it’s Henry Fonda, and who wants to see wholesome Henry Fonda as a scoundrel? I&amp;#039;m scarred enough from seeing Gregory Peck in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Boys from Brazil&amp;#039;&amp;#039;… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What was up with Clementine and Chihuahua? Are they based on the various ladies we talked about in class? It’s no wonder Chihuahua died though, with a dentist (at least that’s what Doc Holliday really was) doing surgery on her. And the ages of the brothers were all messed up. The movie made Wyatt seem like the oldest, but James was actually the oldest. And where was Warren Earp, the youngest brother? Also, James wasn’t killed. In fact, Morgan was the only brother who got killed. It’s kind of terrible actually, because the inside slip that comes with my DVD says that the real life feuding was “initially set in motion by the slaying of James Earp, Wyatt’s younger brother.” Yeah… okay. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One major issue I had with the character of Clementine is that she didn&amp;#039;t look at all like she had just traveled from Boston to Arizona.  She was completely put together and clean-cut and was also beyond thrilled to have arrived.  I feel that for a young woman to make that trip on her own would have been completely unrealistic.  With the amount of baggage she had with her (which, yes most women do tend to bring when packing for trips) that trip solo would have been nearly impossible.  Especially to keep up her physical appearance. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Century of Dishonor&amp;#039;&amp;#039;). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;were&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the &amp;quot;Indian Department&amp;quot; help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage&amp;quot; at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as &amp;quot;naturally warlike&amp;quot; so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading &amp;quot;Major Problems in the American West&amp;quot; does mention vigilante action taken up for cattle rustling, and mentions Roosevelt&amp;#039;s advocacy. We definitely see plenty of vigilante action somewhat connected to rustling. The reading on women in the West makes conditions seem totally unfavorable and a rough life. It seems wrong that Clementine would be so clean, even-tempered and patient after such a long, roundabout, and seemingly dangerous journey. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The choice to cast a white woman, Linda Darnell, as the Hispanic Chihuahua (nice name) seems to reflect a general trend in Hollywood at this time.  Dr. McClurken mentioned in class that Gone With the Wind was unusual in that it featured African-American actors instead of white actors in blackface.  That being said, I wasn&amp;#039;t at all surprised to see an Anglo-American with dark hair playing a Hispanic woman in My Darling Clementine.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This seems like the type of movie that was created for sheer entertainment purposes and not actually to retell a historical event.  Now, I&amp;#039;m not sure if that is an accurate assumption or not, but if so, then I&amp;#039;m not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;too concerned&amp;#039;&amp;#039; with what it relayed.  That being said, I definitely agree with Jason that it is a damaging portrayal of the American west and a group of men that actually lived the lifestyle.  You learn pretty much nothing about Wyatt Earp, except that he had three brothers and was a Marshall, and you learn only the names of pretty much everyone else involved in his life.  It&amp;#039;s an unrealistic depiction that shaped the way most Americans thought the west to be.  But, as we&amp;#039;ve learned this semester, it&amp;#039;s not the only movie to do that. And I also really like the movie so I can&amp;#039;t bash it too much.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie wasn&amp;#039;t really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn&amp;#039;t about her?! -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing.  In this film and in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (not sure about &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out.  I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling).  So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t understand why the director would change so many details about the shoot out. When we talked about it in class it seems to me the real thing would have been dramatic enough to make into to a film. There were the two sides, the hatred between the two sides, the love triangle, the event that sparks the need for the fight, and the eventual showdown. Why make up other people and events? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My research project is on The Searchers, another Ford Western, and in many texts Ford is lauded for bringing his sensibilities from the silent film era where he started into the more modern film era. I was curious if anyone picked up any techniques that were rooted in silent era practices? I don&amp;#039;t really have any exposure to silent films so I was curious if anyone was and picked up on anything?- B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did wonder who ran/started the Oriental Saloon, when we clearly saw the sign but no trace of &amp;quot;Orientals.&amp;quot; Even the drunk Indian was seen in poor light and could have been any race from where I was sitting. I imagine this was purposefully done. I would like to think that it was because they did not want to show an actual Native American drunk and being shamed and kicked out of town, however, we know that Hollywood often has few qualms. Perhaps it was to maintain the lack of focus on anyone other than the whites? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine: Wasn&amp;#039;t this movie based off of the book, which was admitted to be entirely fiction?  I think the directors would be more likely to  use this known book with romance and drama (yes?) for their film in 1946 than do a bunch of research to find out what Earp&amp;#039;s true biography was and attempt any accuracy beyond the few names they used.  And whether or not they knew the facts about the shootout, one must admit that the film&amp;#039;s shootout out in the corral, with the fences to climb or dodge behind and the freaked-out horses to avoid, a long scene with strategy and multiple dramatic deaths, is much more entertaining to watch than 30 seconds of a 30 shots flying in a vacant lot with three &amp;quot;bad guys&amp;quot; dead and two who flee.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week.  Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne&amp;#039;s westerns don&amp;#039;t lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don&amp;#039;t include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I&amp;#039;m guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it&amp;#039;s just a thought. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I&amp;#039;ve been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone&amp;#039;s style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn&amp;#039;t even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt, I think she was supposed to. From her name and the fact that at one point, she called out &amp;quot;Mamacita!&amp;quot; (Mexican word for &amp;quot;little mother.&amp;quot; Note that it&amp;#039;s the Mexican Spanish. Spaniards would used &amp;quot;mamita.&amp;quot;) when she threw the bag of gold that Doc threw at her when he rushed off. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt, and Lauren, I don&amp;#039;t think Chihuahua is supposed to be Latino at all.  The name is just the name she has as an entertainer or whatever she can be classified as.  I don&amp;#039;t think it would have been uncommon to choose a Spanish word for a name (whether she or her employer did).  Chihuahua is actually a large state in northern Mexico.  Such a name might be considered exotic to a white man, although the girl isn&amp;#039;t (thus making her more desirable).  Also, just because she used &amp;quot;mamacita&amp;quot; doesn&amp;#039;t mean she has to be Latino.  We use Spanish expressions sometimes, too, and we&amp;#039;re not Latino!  And this is not the only instance in a film that a character is given only a first name because that&amp;#039;s all the only one mentioned in the movie! -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being a big fan of Tombstone really makes it hard for me to see this movie in a good way. Although Tombstone get several things wrong as well it portrayed the actual characters and situation far better than My Darling Clementine. Also the Doc Holliday in My Darling Clementine can never compare to Val Kilmers Doc Holliday from Tombstone. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. I have seen parts of old westerns before and so I had some knowledge of the style but I was expecting something more related to what we talked about in class on Tues. By the end of the movie I was very disappointed and couldn&amp;#039;t really understand what was supposed to be the plot, there were so many side plots. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice the barbershop sign? Apparently, the barber and the dentist are the same man. While it’s certainly good for comic relief, I wonder if people actually did that in Western towns. I wouldn’t be surprised, as it seems like a good way to make more money and consolidate things in a small town. But really, what luck, two of the worst moments to be sitting in a bad chair: when you’re getting a shave and when you’re getting your teeth pulled. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve seen more than my fair share of Westerns in the last few months, and I gotta ask: am I the only one who wants to take up drinking whiskey after watching these movies? I am curious if these movies influenced whiskey consumption in the same way that cigarette use in older films likely made cigarettes &amp;quot;cool&amp;quot;? - B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although we lampooned it a bit in class, I have to say that I much prefer Deadwood to this kind of Western.  Sensationalize the old West though it may, at least Deadwood is a phenomenal show.  And the very flawed Tombstone is entertaining sheerly because it is one of the cheesiest films ever made (so, so nineties).  - Sarah Richardson&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-23T03:07:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...The names were right.  And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;d like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target.  I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West.  Also, even though the Clanton family didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;rustle&amp;quot; the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Problems of the Old West&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 198).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of my favorite moments was when Wyatt buffaloed one of the Tombstone Cowboys. It was actually accurate, as we mentioned Earp’s love of pistol whipping people in class. And it was totally awesome! --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona&amp;#039;s heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West?  Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then.  Were hospitals built?  If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong.  Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of &amp;#039;hero&amp;#039; in class on Tuesday, but that&amp;#039;s how he is portrayed in the film.  Also... I don&amp;#039;t remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier.  Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone?  This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have &amp;#039;heard&amp;#039; of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie.  It was very stereotypical of westerns.  It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn&amp;#039;t even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don&amp;#039;t understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton&amp;#039;s are immediately made the villains and the Earp&amp;#039;s are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn&amp;#039;t a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen&amp;#039;t die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt&amp;#039;s pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt just wanted to play a nice game of honest poker and he basically quit after finding out about Chihuahua helping his rivals was just cute. He totally seemed like such an upstanding guy that he would never put up with that. He easily wins over the prettiest, smartest girl, doesn&amp;#039;t take up with the prostitute, and is only trying to avenge his family. What a vision of the Old West! -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wyatt Earp: The Classic Western Hero. He’s just a noble, avenging passerby who comes in to clean up an immoral and violent little town and seek justice for his brother. After he’s done what he set out to do he leaves as quickly as he swept in. He’s played as the traditional stock cowboy hero that can be seen in most Westerns. The problem is the real Wyatt Earp wasn’t much like that. He was a drinking, gambling vagrant who could be just as immoral as the towns he was acting as marshal for. But it’s Henry Fonda, and who wants to see wholesome Henry Fonda as a scoundrel? I&amp;#039;m scarred enough from seeing Gregory Peck in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Boys from Brazil&amp;#039;&amp;#039;… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What was up with Clementine and Chihuahua? Are they based on the various ladies we talked about in class? It’s no wonder Chihuahua died though, with a dentist (at least that’s what Doc Holliday really was) doing surgery on her. And the ages of the brothers were all messed up. The movie made Wyatt seem like the oldest, but James was actually the oldest. And where was Warren Earp, the youngest brother? Also, James wasn’t killed. In fact, Morgan was the only brother who got killed. It’s kind of terrible actually, because the inside slip that comes with my DVD says that the real life feuding was “initially set in motion by the slaying of James Earp, Wyatt’s younger brother.” Yeah… okay. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One major issue I had with the character of Clementine is that she didn&amp;#039;t look at all like she had just traveled from Boston to Arizona.  She was completely put together and clean-cut and was also beyond thrilled to have arrived.  I feel that for a young woman to make that trip on her own would have been completely unrealistic.  With the amount of baggage she had with her (which, yes most women do tend to bring when packing for trips) that trip solo would have been nearly impossible.  Especially to keep up her physical appearance. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Century of Dishonor&amp;#039;&amp;#039;). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;were&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the &amp;quot;Indian Department&amp;quot; help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage&amp;quot; at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as &amp;quot;naturally warlike&amp;quot; so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading &amp;quot;Major Problems in the American West&amp;quot; does mention vigilante action taken up for cattle rustling, and mentions Roosevelt&amp;#039;s advocacy. We definitely see plenty of vigilante action somewhat connected to rustling. The reading on women in the West makes conditions seem totally unfavorable and a rough life. It seems wrong that Clementine would be so clean, even-tempered and patient after such a long, roundabout, and seemingly dangerous journey. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The choice to cast a white woman, Linda Darnell, as the Hispanic Chihuahua (nice name) seems to reflect a general trend in Hollywood at this time.  Dr. McClurken mentioned in class that Gone With the Wind was unusual in that it featured African-American actors instead of white actors in blackface.  That being said, I wasn&amp;#039;t at all surprised to see an Anglo-American with dark hair playing a Hispanic woman in My Darling Clementine.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie wasn&amp;#039;t really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn&amp;#039;t about her?! -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing.  In this film and in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (not sure about &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out.  I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling).  So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t understand why the director would change so many details about the shoot out. When we talked about it in class it seems to me the real thing would have been dramatic enough to make into to a film. There were the two sides, the hatred between the two sides, the love triangle, the event that sparks the need for the fight, and the eventual showdown. Why make up other people and events? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My research project is on The Searchers, another Ford Western, and in many texts Ford is lauded for bringing his sensibilities from the silent film era where he started into the more modern film era. I was curious if anyone picked up any techniques that were rooted in silent era practices? I don&amp;#039;t really have any exposure to silent films so I was curious if anyone was and picked up on anything?- B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did wonder who ran/started the Oriental Saloon, when we clearly saw the sign but no trace of &amp;quot;Orientals.&amp;quot; Even the drunk Indian was seen in poor light and could have been any race from where I was sitting. I imagine this was purposefully done. I would like to think that it was because they did not want to show an actual Native American drunk and being shamed and kicked out of town, however, we know that Hollywood often has few qualms. Perhaps it was to maintain the lack of focus on anyone other than the whites? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week.  Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne&amp;#039;s westerns don&amp;#039;t lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don&amp;#039;t include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I&amp;#039;m guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it&amp;#039;s just a thought. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I&amp;#039;ve been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone&amp;#039;s style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn&amp;#039;t even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt, I think she was supposed to. From her name and the fact that at one point, she called out &amp;quot;Mamacita!&amp;quot; (Mexican word for &amp;quot;little mother.&amp;quot; Note that it&amp;#039;s the Mexican Spanish. Spaniards would used &amp;quot;mamita.&amp;quot;) when she threw the bag of gold that Doc threw at her when he rushed off. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt, and Lauren, I don&amp;#039;t think Chihuahua is supposed to be Latino at all.  The name is just the name she has as an entertainer or whatever she can be classified as.  I don&amp;#039;t think it would have been uncommon to choose a Spanish word for a name (whether she or her employer did).  Chihuahua is actually a large state in northern Mexico.  Such a name might be considered exotic to a white man, although the girl isn&amp;#039;t (thus making her more desirable).  Also, just because she used &amp;quot;mamacita&amp;quot; doesn&amp;#039;t mean she has to be Latino.  We use Spanish expressions sometimes, too, and we&amp;#039;re not Latino!  And this is not the only instance in a film that a character is given only a first name because that&amp;#039;s all the only one mentioned in the movie! -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being a big fan of Tombstone really makes it hard for me to see this movie in a good way. Although Tombstone get several things wrong as well it portrayed the actual characters and situation far better than My Darling Clementine. Also the Doc Holliday in My Darling Clementine can never compare to Val Kilmers Doc Holliday from Tombstone. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. I have seen parts of old westerns before and so I had some knowledge of the style but I was expecting something more related to what we talked about in class on Tues. By the end of the movie I was very disappointed and couldn&amp;#039;t really understand what was supposed to be the plot, there were so many side plots. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice the barbershop sign? Apparently, the barber and the dentist are the same man. While it’s certainly good for comic relief, I wonder if people actually did that in Western towns. I wouldn’t be surprised, as it seems like a good way to make more money and consolidate things in a small town. But really, what luck, two of the worst moments to be sitting in a bad chair: when you’re getting a shave and when you’re getting your teeth pulled. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve seen more than my fair share of Westerns in the last few months, and I gotta ask: am I the only one who wants to take up drinking whiskey after watching these movies? I am curious if these movies influenced whiskey consumption in the same way that cigarette use in older films likely made cigarettes &amp;quot;cool&amp;quot;? - B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although we lampooned it a bit in class, I have to say that I much prefer Deadwood to this kind of Western.  Sensationalize the old West though it may, at least Deadwood is a phenomenal show.  And the very flawed Tombstone is entertaining sheerly because it is one of the cheesiest films ever made (so, so nineties).  - Sarah Richardson&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-22T03:09:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-22T03:08:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-22T01:44:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua on her death bed looked better than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly a historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-22T01:43:54Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua on her death bed looked better than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly a historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to that &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-22T01:31:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua on her death bed looked better than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly a historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-22T01:28:27Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua on her death bed looked better than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly a historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, and while the Earps were there is when the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-22T01:14:08Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua on her death bed looked better than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly a historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-09T15:25:38Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To tag onto Lauren&amp;#039;s comment a bit - I felt that the confrontation between white union soldiers and the 54th regiment was realistic, as well as the trouble that Shaw and company encountered in convincing the supplier to give them shoes etc. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although many think that the 54th MA was the first black regiment in the Civil War, as it is more symbolic and is the one Glory is all about, the filmmakers try to prevent that misperception.  When Shaw meets Montgomery, he is asked something like, &amp;quot;you didn&amp;#039;t think yours was the only colored regiment, did you?&amp;quot; and we learn that the 2d SC existed before the 54th MA did. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Whitney&amp;#039;s comment - I disagree that the film makers did other black regiments justice - they didn&amp;#039;t acknowledge other blacks actually fighting, and they portrayed them as &amp;quot;chimps in uniform&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;children&amp;quot; in the scene where they ransack the town of the &amp;#039;cessors. The movie seemed to make the 54th regiment the ONE exception to the rule and Shaw a great hero for respecting and believing in his black troops. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&amp;#039;s a very good point, Elle. It was portrayed very negatively. -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am going to disagree with you two. The film says in the closing subtitles that more troops, 180,000 black men enlisting, were created after the Emancipation Proclamation. Suggesting that there were more Black troops and they certainly could have engaged in battle. The negative portrayal was not only cinematically beneficial, but it also helped tell a well-rounded history, and not simply glorify (pardon the word choice) the whole thing. The undisciplined troop spoke more to the white officers&amp;#039; views who commanded them rather than the quality of the enlisted men themselves. Shaw and the 54th, on the contrary, showed the positive results of black and white cooperation and respect. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that they brought up the fact that the union officers were appointed by social status. Shawl pretty much declares it in his letter when he said they made him captain of man who are older then him.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a great movie and one thing that really stood out to me was how accurately Shaw&amp;#039;s post traumatic stress disorder was portrayed. Towards the beginning of the movie when Shaw returns to Boston and is talking to Thomas at the gathering with his family,  a maid closes the window, which causes a loud BANG similar to a gunshot and Shaw jumps; showing how emotionally disturbed and on edge he is from having been to war. The disorder is also shown during the scene when the regiment first receive their guns and are pretending to fight one another, the look in Shaw&amp;#039;s eyes and on his face it is evident that he is still coping with having been in battle and almost killed. Post traumatic stress was a very common repercussion of war that isn&amp;#039;t always discussed so having it play a part in the film makes the movie, for me personally, more accurate. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also used one quote that we talked about during class.  One of the white Union soldiers made a comment about the 54th MA when they first assembled, and he said something along the lines of how the black soldiers were even more useless than a hog, because you at least eat a hog, you can&amp;#039;t eat a black person. By using an actual quote from the time period shows that the writers really did their research.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how the movie included black culture.  As Shaw is narrating his letters he is saying how he &amp;quot;doesn&amp;#039;t get the black people&amp;quot; and how they behave.  I don&amp;#039;t think this is out of anger but because he feels that in order to successfully lead an army, he needs to understand his troops (this comes into play when he punishes Denzel&amp;#039;s character, as discussed above).  Furthermore, before the final battle scene at Fort Wagner, the movie shows a touching scene as the soldiers are singing in prayer, preparing for battle. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the things the movie does best is show the overall treatment of blacks by the North. In the movie, they are discriminated against by receiving lesser pay and are slow to be provided with supplies. They are not allowed into battle and left to dig trenches and work as manual laborers. They are also mistreated and mocked by some unenthusiastic racist Northerners. As time passes, however, their discipline becomes clear, and they are allowed into battle where they prove their capabilities. The Northerners grow to respect the blacks and see them as actual people. The movie also does a fair job in expressing blacks’ reasons for volunteering. Their desire to prove themselves as equal to whites and fight for their people’s freedom is very clear. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; accurately depicts black regiments and their impact on blacks and Northerners in a larger historical context. At the very least, the larger historical picture is represented better in this movie than in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, which tried to play the trial off as more important than it really was. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing the movie does especially well is the battle scenes. It is quite clear that the tactics used by the Union and Confederate armies don’t match up to the technology they are using, resulting in terrible casualties and horrific injuries. The small glimpse of hospitals is pretty gruesome and accurate, especially the unsanitary conditions and the amputation scene.  Also, in the movie, Shaw seems to suffer from a bit of PTSD, which wasn’t uncommon for Civil War soldiers, though it certainly wasn’t diagnosed as PTSD until Vietnam. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was impressed at the horrific depiction of the hospital scenes. It was essentially an updated version of the one from Gone with the Wind. It was loud, there were shortages of chloroform and nearly everyone in the hospital left without a limb. I was also struck by the subtle play to the lack of understanding of cleanliness when one of the surgeons dropped a knife into a basin full of bloody water. No wonder disease was such a killer! Also, I thought that depiction of the strategies being behind the times was evident both at the beginning and ending of the movie. In the beginning at Antietam Shaw and his men slowly march into established confederate positions only to be mowed down. Also one can not help to take the final scene as being mildly absurd. Not because of poor acting, but because that was the type of thing that really happened in the Civil War. Men were sent straight into the teeth of enemy lines and fortifications with little hope of success (much like Fredericksburg, Pickett&amp;#039;s Charge etc.). This is reinforced in the final text letting you know that half of the regiment was killed and that the attack on the fort was a failure.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, you gotta love the reference to the battle of Fredericksburg. Go Mary Wash!- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle on the filmmakers not portraying other black troops fighting. It showed that the 54th was the only black group that was capable of fighting the war.  There were other black troops that fought just as well. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Civil War is, understandably, a divisive issue.  Glory portrayed the racism that existed in the Union army.  It is easy to assume that the victorious Union army fought for equality and justice for all, fundamental American values, but it does a disservice to both sides to ignore the racism and prejudice that pervaded American culture at this time.  It is so easy to view the North as completely just and egalitarian and the South as oppressive and racist.  I think that Glory’s greatest strength is that it recognizes the prejudice that existed on both sides of the war.  – Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think it is important that that the movie showed the racism of the North and illustrate that the North was not all about equality for all.  – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the reason Glory did such a good job at portraying history accurately was due to the sources the filmmakers chose to use.  The very opening of the movie stated that the events depicted in the movie were derived from Shaw&amp;#039;s personal correspondence - a filmmaker using primary sources is very impressive.  At the end of the movie, 2 other works were cited as sources for the film, which I assume to be monographs written by historians.  For these reasons, perhaps this is why Glory is considerably more historically accurate than its Civil War counterpart, Gone with the Wind - a movie based on a historical romance novel. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is there to say about this one? It&amp;#039;s a fantastic movie front to back. The story, characters, and treatment of the historical events are all, in my mind, perfectly accurate. The racism never seems overly exaggerated, nor undercut in its nature. The treatment of blacks both by whites and other blacks all seemed to be very true, preventing the filmmakers from turning the black characters into a minstrel show, and preventing the white characters from treating them too harshly. Honestly, when a movie gets it as &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; as Glory did, there&amp;#039;s not much you can say that hasn&amp;#039;t already been said. --Cash.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice how perfect the feet of the dead men on the beach were?  Pretty good healing after nasty feet from not having had boots. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, just like in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; a different character was used when the historical character would have been perfectly acceptable.  In class, we learned that General Benjamin Butler created the idea of the contraband.  If you can recall from the movie, Colonel James Montgomery conveniently created the idea of the contraband.  I think it&amp;#039;s a tad ridiculous that they changed the actual figure for this one in order to, in my opinion, create a villain.  The contrabands were also then shown in a beyond negative light, acting as Col. Montgomery called them, &amp;quot;little monkey children.&amp;quot;  I&amp;#039;m also seeing a pattern of villains burning down homes for no reason. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to Kelly&amp;#039;s last point: But Union troops did burn down Southern plantation homes and so forth, it was common amongst white troops too. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class we learned that in the North there were many different perspectives that dictated how Lincoln would respond to slavery and the treatment of blacks. I feel as though the movie did not show the balancing act at all. The movie showed tolerant whites and racist whites, it did not discuss Northern Democrats, the zealots of abolition, or President Lincoln’s strategic approach to emancipation. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was no emphasis on restoring the union like we discussed in class. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I don&amp;#039;t really think that was a priority of the movie or necessary with its themes Jason. But, they did allude to the problems in that area when Brodrick and D. Washington have their heart-to-heart. Denzel says nobody&amp;#039;s gonna win. And Matt naively says, someone has to win. And then Denzel goes into the hypothetical future and asks rhetorically if African Americans have any hope of winning in either case. But within this dramatic moment, we see the Northern upper-crust perspective of winning a war and bringing the union back together, North and South under one great nation, but it is obvious this is going to be very hard even if the Union does win. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the union army ransack and burn a village in the south regardless of political allegiance? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Runaway slaves were not discussed, or at least not properly. Yes, men like trip were runaways, as were many of the other men, but because there was no mention of runaways “not making it” the viewer is led to believe that all slaves who escaped to the North were somehow in a safe haven. Where was the sad reality of the fugitive slave act? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was the fugitive slave act in effect at this point?  After all, runaway slaves could easily say that their masters were confederate conspirators against the union, a statement that would free them in the union&amp;#039;s eyes.  The slaves also had a few laws protecting them from the fugitive slave act, such as one passed in March 1862, Confiscation Acts, and fragmented versions of preliminary emancipation. --James D.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about the Southern perspective? We did not hear from Southern unionists, slave holders, or slaves currently in bondage. Without these perspectives being represented the reality of the immense struggle for union and emancipation is distorted. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was in the beginning of the movie when all the black soldiers have just enlisted and are getting organized was how they were all told to report to the officers according to what it said on their muster sheets. Weren&amp;#039;t most blacks illiterate at this time, and therefore not able to report to their officers? The movie showed this not being a problem for them.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I actually have a question.  In the movie, Shaw has to essentially blackmail the General in order to get the orders to let his men fight in a battle.  Did Shaw really have to pull strings in order to get his men out there?  Or was this all for dramatic effect?  I mean, it definitely emphasized how difficult it was for black soldiers to originally see a battlefield, but I felt like this was a bit extreme. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a series of somewhat small nitpicks that I’ll just group together in one paragraph of whining. Wasn’t the 54th Regiment made up mostly of free black men from Massachusetts? Aside from Thomas, basically all of the men shown seemed to have once been slaves. On Colonel Montgomery, as far as I understand, he was a staunch abolitionist, so I find it unlikely that he would consider the men under his command apelike simpletons. For that matter, would abolitionist Colonel Shaw have supported whipping a “deserter” like a slave driver would? There’s also the small issue of the living situation. According to one of the readings, the men were in barracks, not the tents shown in the movie. In the battle at Fort Wagner, one of the readings states that it was Shaw who actually picked up the flag and charged, only to be shot once in the chest. Assuming this is an accurate account, the movie didn’t quite follow along with that either. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may be wrong but in the first battle scene with the 54th they went from being bayonet-less and firing to then meeting the confederate charge with one of their own, bayonets fixed. I thought it was strange seeing as how otherwise they were pretty good about showing the multi-step process of loading and firing. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine’s question; did the white soldiers support the black soldiers by refusing to receive pay if both races didn’t receive the same amount? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the black soldiers were very stereotypical.  While yes there were a variety of characters, they all seemed to follow some kind of stereotype. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, we&amp;#039;re told that the 54th was actually made up of free blacks, not former slaves, but I suppose we would have lost a lot of the angry-black-guy storylines and the very emotional whipping scene. He does note that a lot of black soldiers who fought were former slaves.. just not those who manned the 54th. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will say the movie portrayed the confederates very stereotypically.  They all looked like they could be members of the Charlie Daniels Band or Lynard Skynard. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glory treats the 54th throughout the movie as the first group of former slaves and free black men to fight in the Civil War.  There is no mention of precedent for its formation outside of the interactions with the other black regiment.  We know the 54th was not the first black regiment formed, nor the first group in combat, especially considering the sailors engaged in naval combat... The creation of Cpl. Thomas Searles character is equally problematic.  He seems to be there only to create the extra drama of a friend of Shaw&amp;#039;s in the unit.  If the film producers wanted to communicate the experience of a Northern, educated black man in the regiment, introducing Douglass&amp;#039; sons would have been far more interesting. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Colors: in Gooding&amp;#039;s June 20 letter, he describes the attack on Ft. Wagner, including that Shaw took up the State colors after the first bearer was killed on the parapet, and that once he was killed a Sgt. Carney saved the colors, and even said the flag never touched the ground.  Yet the movie portrays it very differently!  Not only do we see both the US and the regimental flag on the ground when the 54th is taking cover behind a dune once the battle starts, but then we see Shaw assessing the situation and the US flag on the ground in front of him.  Ironically, once he and the colorer-bearer get up and the latter is shot, Shaw, rather than pick up the colors, surges on, is shot, and dies falling onto the fallen colors!  I don&amp;#039;t know why it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been heroic to show Shaw carrying the colors AND dying on them.  After Denzel unsuccessfully tries to rescue the flag, we see both flags conspicuously in the picture gaining ground until the end, all the while both fully intact.  The filmmakers took license in order to show the character of Private Trip, who has a change of heart and will carry the colors after all.  And what can be more symbolic than for Old Glory to always be seen and to make it as far as the farthest soldier onto the fort? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the readings it mentioned how great the regiment was discipline wise and were great with marching etc... I felt that the movie correctly portrayed how quickly they learned the discipline of military stuffs as was mentioned in the readings --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading “Retaliation in Camp” with Halton and Union troops stated that the colored troops would still fight for the government even though the government didn’t want them. I think the movie portrays this well when Colonel Shaw read the paper stating that if blacks are found on Union lines they could be killed or brought back to their masters and that if the Union leaders were commanding the black troops they also could be tried and killed.  All the colored men stayed and were still risking their lives to fight; even the white majors and colonels stayed such as Shaw and Forbes. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-The letter did seem a little extreme, but keep in mind it was from the Confederate Congress.  How would Union officers be treated if captured while commanding white troops and how would this action play out in the prisoner of war exchange?  Union officers risked their lives commanding black troops, but in the realm of war, were they not already risking their lives in general?  Does it really matter what color troops they were commanding once they entered the battlefield?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Also, I think the Union government did want the slaves as black troops.  The Union needed laborers, thus the contraband of runaway slaves was a good source put to use beginning with sticking them in the navy, putting them to work on the grounds, and eventually, once they were skilled, placing them into combat.  Eventually viewed as good fighters, the Union began to recruit blacks from the north and south for the war effort, at the same time ultimately weakening the south by removing their labor.  After all, what else would the Union do with about a quarter of the southern black population that carried a hint of hatred against confederates?-James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading Gooding&amp;#039;s letters, he mentions the sacking and burning of Darien by Colonel Montgomery and his 2nd SC regiment, which was depicted in the movie.  In the letter, the attack on Darien was depicted as barbaric and extreme, with a footnote sighting the Shaw himself was very disappointed in how Montgomery handled his troops during this attack, how he felt the 2nd SC had gone too far for personal gain, rather than furthering the cause of the Union.  This interpretation was depicted in the movie when Montgomery orders Shaw to have the 54th contribute to the destruction of the town by burning down the mansions and Shaw tries to refuse on moral principles, before Montgomery pulls rank. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...As well as the popular black male actors of the last 20 years, Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...And the last thing that Denzel ever did right in his career. -Cash.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The argument where Morgan verbal owns Denzel is very interesting to the time period and the present. The N-word is discussed and Morgan Freeman says &amp;quot;the only N---- here is you&amp;quot; to Denzel. It is dealing with a perception of black people by whites and blacks themselves that is super relevant today. Morgan calls Denzel out on his anger and hatred and callousness toward everybody, telling him basically that he just hates himself. Using the N-word is debated amongst blacks, some for it, taking it back, others against it, saying it is self-deprecating, like in this case with Denzel&amp;#039;s character. Most of these themey, dramatic, pointed moments in the film are kind of cheesey, but this scene was amazing and very effective.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; seemed to generally be received well by the public.  It has been dubbed as the most &amp;quot;technically realistic and memorable Civil War reenactment.&amp;quot;  Denzel Washington received his first Oscar in the Supporting Actor category.  Glory could be argued for in being the best film of the year (it wasn&amp;#039;t nominated for Best Picture), but if you look at the films it would have to compete against - Born on the Fourth of July, Driving Miss Daisy (the winner), and Field of Dreams - it would be a tough argument.  The other movies mentioned also dealt with the themes of War and Racism (except for Field of Dreams), something Glory needed to combine.  You would think with the star power the film had (Matthew Broderick/Ferris Bueller and Morgan Freeman, who ended up being nominated for Lead Actor for Driving Miss Daisy) that it should have gotten more recognition by the public.  Or, maybe this movie should be one for historians to claim and praise for themselves. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The stutter really got to me - I felt like some of the stereotypes hindered the films purpose of glorifying the dedicated soldiers, and  actually made me think of mammy and sissy from Gone with the Wind. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, there is just no pleasing you, is there? I personally thought the movie was one of the first examples in this class that showed a well-rounded, diverse group of people in one particular place and time period. There was minimal stock character presence or cheap stereotyping. And really, do people have to get uppity every time a minority is portrayed as a villain, or as stupid, or as handicapped, or as ignorant, or as poor...? White dudes get portrayed in these ways too in movies. In fact, some white dudes in this movie fall into one or more of the previously mentioned qualities! --Jackie Reed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing about the stereotype that amuses me is that once the 54th is in SC, a slave is talking to the Northern, educated, &amp;quot;Snowflake&amp;quot; Thomas, and he needs the wise old Freeman to interpret the dialect for him!  But maybe I just like that because I like linguistics. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but notice that the music sounded familiar. It sounded very similar to the music in Apollo 13. I did some investigation (thanks to IMDB) and discovered that both movies have the same musical composer. While I do think the composer could have been a little more original in Apollo 13, since this movie came out first, they&amp;#039;re still great songs. This is just something I found pretty interesting. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it pertains to War Movie Scores, when I was typing one of my posts the Gettysburg Theme by John Williams came on my ipod. I love the music in that movie, and I love that movie. I say this because after this week we leave the Civil War era and I wanted to acknowledge it. I suppose this is a question more directed at Dr. McClurken but open to anyone, how does that movie rank in terms of historical accuracy? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, if you ever get a chance to read Killer Angels, DO SO IMMEDIATELY. They are both fantastic, near-perfect reports on how the battle went. Having taken several Gettysburg tours, and written even more papers on the topic, I can tell you; they got it right. -Cash.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning there was a scene with Union troops playing baseball, would they have played baseball during the war at their camps? Also, later in the film I noticed the golden eagle statue on the top of the flap poles, was the eagle already adopted as the nation&amp;#039;s symbol? If so, was it already being used and displayed on flags as such?--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked this in my blog, but I&amp;#039;m going to ask it here too.  Wasn&amp;#039;t flogging actually illegal in the US Military before the Civil War?  I thought you couldn&amp;#039;t whip in the Army anymore but they obviously punished Trip in that fashion.  I could be wrong though.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did blacks really treat each other differently based upon education? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley, baseball as a sport is cited as being played as early as the 1830s.  It&amp;#039;s not unlikely that the Americans would have developed their own version of cricket as early as this point.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As to the stereotypes, I wanted to quote Toplin, since I think he said it pretty well. &amp;quot;Glory... focus[ed] on a group of black soldiers that included a gung-ho intellectual, a surly rebel who learned to be a team player, an older father figure, and a stuttering former slave.&amp;quot; To be fair, I will say that these stereotypes had to have their basis in something.. or perhaps that&amp;#039;s all of the Hollywood movies I&amp;#039;ve seen that have convinced me that these characters could sometimes be real. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
I loved the symbolism at the end with Denzel Washington hugging Matthew Broderick after they&amp;#039;re thrown into the heap of dead bodies. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just have to say, especially since we&amp;#039;re not having class tomorrow, I can&amp;#039;t stand Matthew Broderick&amp;#039;s little goatee-like thing.  I think just the mustache would have sufficed. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before they go into Battle Shaw asks who will bear the colors if they are to fall, Thomas says that he will. When the colors do fall in battle, Thomas and Trip look at one another and Thomas gives Trip a look that says &amp;quot;well, I&amp;#039;m not going to pick them up&amp;quot; so Trip gallantly recovers them. Thomas is portrayed as a coward who would not live up to his word, fight heroically for his country, or avenge the death of Shaw who had treated him with nothing but fairness (even though it is understandable if Thomas felt slighted by that treatment). The fact that Trip takes the colors shows that a former slave who had every reason to resent whites, was so inspired by the promise of winning the war and gaining equality that he would die for the cause. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first time I saw this movie was in middle school. We had to watch this movie and Gettysburg (pending parental permission of course) in our lessons on the Civil War. I find it interesting remembering that much of what I took to know about the war in regards to slavery came from this movie up until high school. For those who haven&amp;#039;t really studied the Civil War, movies like this may be all that they have to go on.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that the other black regiments wore red paints instead of the blue ones is that used to dissern the regiments apart or was that a common thing in the union forces?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember loving this movie in 7th grade when I first saw it. I have to say now, after a more in depth education on the civil war, I don&amp;#039;t really like it as much. It just doesn&amp;#039;t have the same meaning that it used to hold. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt-- I don&amp;#039;t know about the 2nd SC in particular, but in the Civil War it was not uncommon for there to be some regiments with different uniforms, either Confederate or Union.  Early in the war (1861), Union units did not all receive the same uniform--it tended to be whatever the government could get for them, being a variety of mostly blue, navy, and gray in different items (Confederates being equally varied and often making their own at that point).  There were a number of &amp;quot;Zouave&amp;quot; regiments (originally French ones, but by the Civil War they were more varied and numerous) that were known to have their uniforms, usually of North African (e.g. Moroccan) influence, often incorporating red for trim, pants, or fezes, and different articles such as loose pants instead of trousers, with lighter materials than wool, for ease of movement and comfort in the heat. [source: background knowledge and wikipedia.] -Whitney H.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-09T15:21:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To tag onto Lauren&amp;#039;s comment a bit - I felt that the confrontation between white union soldiers and the 54th regiment was realistic, as well as the trouble that Shaw and company encountered in convincing the supplier to give them shoes etc. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although many think that the 54th MA was the first black regiment in the Civil War, as it is more symbolic and is the one Glory is all about, the filmmakers try to prevent that misperception.  When Shaw meets Montgomery, he is asked something like, &amp;quot;you didn&amp;#039;t think yours was the only colored regiment, did you?&amp;quot; and we learn that the 2d SC existed before the 54th MA did. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Whitney&amp;#039;s comment - I disagree that the film makers did other black regiments justice - they didn&amp;#039;t acknowledge other blacks actually fighting, and they portrayed them as &amp;quot;chimps in uniform&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;children&amp;quot; in the scene where they ransack the town of the &amp;#039;cessors. The movie seemed to make the 54th regiment the ONE exception to the rule and Shaw a great hero for respecting and believing in his black troops. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&amp;#039;s a very good point, Elle. It was portrayed very negatively. -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am going to disagree with you two. The film says in the closing subtitles that more troops, 180,000 black men enlisting, were created after the Emancipation Proclamation. Suggesting that there were more Black troops and they certainly could have engaged in battle. The negative portrayal was not only cinematically beneficial, but it also helped tell a well-rounded history, and not simply glorify (pardon the word choice) the whole thing. The undisciplined troop spoke more to the white officers&amp;#039; views who commanded them rather than the quality of the enlisted men themselves. Shaw and the 54th, on the contrary, showed the positive results of black and white cooperation and respect. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that they brought up the fact that the union officers were appointed by social status. Shawl pretty much declares it in his letter when he said they made him captain of man who are older then him.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a great movie and one thing that really stood out to me was how accurately Shaw&amp;#039;s post traumatic stress disorder was portrayed. Towards the beginning of the movie when Shaw returns to Boston and is talking to Thomas at the gathering with his family,  a maid closes the window, which causes a loud BANG similar to a gunshot and Shaw jumps; showing how emotionally disturbed and on edge he is from having been to war. The disorder is also shown during the scene when the regiment first receive their guns and are pretending to fight one another, the look in Shaw&amp;#039;s eyes and on his face it is evident that he is still coping with having been in battle and almost killed. Post traumatic stress was a very common repercussion of war that isn&amp;#039;t always discussed so having it play a part in the film makes the movie, for me personally, more accurate. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also used one quote that we talked about during class.  One of the white Union soldiers made a comment about the 54th MA when they first assembled, and he said something along the lines of how the black soldiers were even more useless than a hog, because you at least eat a hog, you can&amp;#039;t eat a black person. By using an actual quote from the time period shows that the writers really did their research.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how the movie included black culture.  As Shaw is narrating his letters he is saying how he &amp;quot;doesn&amp;#039;t get the black people&amp;quot; and how they behave.  I don&amp;#039;t think this is out of anger but because he feels that in order to successfully lead an army, he needs to understand his troops (this comes into play when he punishes Denzel&amp;#039;s character, as discussed above).  Furthermore, before the final battle scene at Fort Wagner, the movie shows a touching scene as the soldiers are singing in prayer, preparing for battle. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the things the movie does best is show the overall treatment of blacks by the North. In the movie, they are discriminated against by receiving lesser pay and are slow to be provided with supplies. They are not allowed into battle and left to dig trenches and work as manual laborers. They are also mistreated and mocked by some unenthusiastic racist Northerners. As time passes, however, their discipline becomes clear, and they are allowed into battle where they prove their capabilities. The Northerners grow to respect the blacks and see them as actual people. The movie also does a fair job in expressing blacks’ reasons for volunteering. Their desire to prove themselves as equal to whites and fight for their people’s freedom is very clear. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; accurately depicts black regiments and their impact on blacks and Northerners in a larger historical context. At the very least, the larger historical picture is represented better in this movie than in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, which tried to play the trial off as more important than it really was. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing the movie does especially well is the battle scenes. It is quite clear that the tactics used by the Union and Confederate armies don’t match up to the technology they are using, resulting in terrible casualties and horrific injuries. The small glimpse of hospitals is pretty gruesome and accurate, especially the unsanitary conditions and the amputation scene.  Also, in the movie, Shaw seems to suffer from a bit of PTSD, which wasn’t uncommon for Civil War soldiers, though it certainly wasn’t diagnosed as PTSD until Vietnam. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was impressed at the horrific depiction of the hospital scenes. It was essentially an updated version of the one from Gone with the Wind. It was loud, there were shortages of chloroform and nearly everyone in the hospital left without a limb. I was also struck by the subtle play to the lack of understanding of cleanliness when one of the surgeons dropped a knife into a basin full of bloody water. No wonder disease was such a killer! Also, I thought that depiction of the strategies being behind the times was evident both at the beginning and ending of the movie. In the beginning at Antietam Shaw and his men slowly march into established confederate positions only to be mowed down. Also one can not help to take the final scene as being mildly absurd. Not because of poor acting, but because that was the type of thing that really happened in the Civil War. Men were sent straight into the teeth of enemy lines and fortifications with little hope of success (much like Fredericksburg, Pickett&amp;#039;s Charge etc.). This is reinforced in the final text letting you know that half of the regiment was killed and that the attack on the fort was a failure.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, you gotta love the reference to the battle of Fredericksburg. Go Mary Wash!- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle on the filmmakers not portraying other black troops fighting. It showed that the 54th was the only black group that was capable of fighting the war.  There were other black troops that fought just as well. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Civil War is, understandably, a divisive issue.  Glory portrayed the racism that existed in the Union army.  It is easy to assume that the victorious Union army fought for equality and justice for all, fundamental American values, but it does a disservice to both sides to ignore the racism and prejudice that pervaded American culture at this time.  It is so easy to view the North as completely just and egalitarian and the South as oppressive and racist.  I think that Glory’s greatest strength is that it recognizes the prejudice that existed on both sides of the war.  – Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think it is important that that the movie showed the racism of the North and illustrate that the North was not all about equality for all.  – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the reason Glory did such a good job at portraying history accurately was due to the sources the filmmakers chose to use.  The very opening of the movie stated that the events depicted in the movie were derived from Shaw&amp;#039;s personal correspondence - a filmmaker using primary sources is very impressive.  At the end of the movie, 2 other works were cited as sources for the film, which I assume to be monographs written by historians.  For these reasons, perhaps this is why Glory is considerably more historically accurate than its Civil War counterpart, Gone with the Wind - a movie based on a historical romance novel. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is there to say about this one? It&amp;#039;s a fantastic movie front to back. The story, characters, and treatment of the historical events are all, in my mind, perfectly accurate. The racism never seems overly exaggerated, nor undercut in its nature. The treatment of blacks both by whites and other blacks all seemed to be very true, preventing the filmmakers from turning the black characters into a minstrel show, and preventing the white characters from treating them too harshly. Honestly, when a movie gets it as &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; as Glory did, there&amp;#039;s not much you can say that hasn&amp;#039;t already been said. --Cash.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice how perfect the feet of the dead men on the beach were?  Pretty good healing after nasty feet from not having had boots. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, just like in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; a different character was used when the historical character would have been perfectly acceptable.  In class, we learned that General Benjamin Butler created the idea of the contraband.  If you can recall from the movie, Colonel James Montgomery conveniently created the idea of the contraband.  I think it&amp;#039;s a tad ridiculous that they changed the actual figure for this one in order to, in my opinion, create a villain.  The contrabands were also then shown in a beyond negative light, acting as Col. Montgomery called them, &amp;quot;little monkey children.&amp;quot;  I&amp;#039;m also seeing a pattern of villains burning down homes for no reason. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to Kelly&amp;#039;s last point: But Union troops did burn down Southern plantation homes and so forth, it was common amongst white troops too. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class we learned that in the North there were many different perspectives that dictated how Lincoln would respond to slavery and the treatment of blacks. I feel as though the movie did not show the balancing act at all. The movie showed tolerant whites and racist whites, it did not discuss Northern Democrats, the zealots of abolition, or President Lincoln’s strategic approach to emancipation. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was no emphasis on restoring the union like we discussed in class. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I don&amp;#039;t really think that was a priority of the movie or necessary with its themes Jason. But, they did allude to the problems in that area when Brodrick and D. Washington have their heart-to-heart. Denzel says nobody&amp;#039;s gonna win. And Matt naively says, someone has to win. And then Denzel goes into the hypothetical future and asks rhetorically if African Americans have any hope of winning in either case. But within this dramatic moment, we see the Northern upper-crust perspective of winning a war and bringing the union back together, North and South under one great nation, but it is obvious this is going to be very hard even if the Union does win. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the union army ransack and burn a village in the south regardless of political allegiance? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Runaway slaves were not discussed, or at least not properly. Yes, men like trip were runaways, as were many of the other men, but because there was no mention of runaways “not making it” the viewer is led to believe that all slaves who escaped to the North were somehow in a safe haven. Where was the sad reality of the fugitive slave act? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was the fugitive slave act in effect at this point?  After all, runaway slaves could easily say that their masters were confederate conspirators against the union, a statement that would free them in the union&amp;#039;s eyes.  The slaves also had a few laws protecting them from the fugitive slave act, such as one passed in March 1862, Confiscation Acts, and fragmented versions of preliminary emancipation. --James D.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about the Southern perspective? We did not hear from Southern unionists, slave holders, or slaves currently in bondage. Without these perspectives being represented the reality of the immense struggle for union and emancipation is distorted. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was in the beginning of the movie when all the black soldiers have just enlisted and are getting organized was how they were all told to report to the officers according to what it said on their muster sheets. Weren&amp;#039;t most blacks illiterate at this time, and therefore not able to report to their officers? The movie showed this not being a problem for them.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I actually have a question.  In the movie, Shaw has to essentially blackmail the General in order to get the orders to let his men fight in a battle.  Did Shaw really have to pull strings in order to get his men out there?  Or was this all for dramatic effect?  I mean, it definitely emphasized how difficult it was for black soldiers to originally see a battlefield, but I felt like this was a bit extreme. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a series of somewhat small nitpicks that I’ll just group together in one paragraph of whining. Wasn’t the 54th Regiment made up mostly of free black men from Massachusetts? Aside from Thomas, basically all of the men shown seemed to have once been slaves. On Colonel Montgomery, as far as I understand, he was a staunch abolitionist, so I find it unlikely that he would consider the men under his command apelike simpletons. For that matter, would abolitionist Colonel Shaw have supported whipping a “deserter” like a slave driver would? There’s also the small issue of the living situation. According to one of the readings, the men were in barracks, not the tents shown in the movie. In the battle at Fort Wagner, one of the readings states that it was Shaw who actually picked up the flag and charged, only to be shot once in the chest. Assuming this is an accurate account, the movie didn’t quite follow along with that either. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may be wrong but in the first battle scene with the 54th they went from being bayonet-less and firing to then meeting the confederate charge with one of their own, bayonets fixed. I thought it was strange seeing as how otherwise they were pretty good about showing the multi-step process of loading and firing. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine’s question; did the white soldiers support the black soldiers by refusing to receive pay if both races didn’t receive the same amount? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the black soldiers were very stereotypical.  While yes there were a variety of characters, they all seemed to follow some kind of stereotype. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, we&amp;#039;re told that the 54th was actually made up of free blacks, not former slaves, but I suppose we would have lost a lot of the angry-black-guy storylines and the very emotional whipping scene. He does note that a lot of black soldiers who fought were former slaves.. just not those who manned the 54th. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will say the movie portrayed the confederates very stereotypically.  They all looked like they could be members of the Charlie Daniels Band or Lynard Skynard. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glory treats the 54th throughout the movie as the first group of former slaves and free black men to fight in the Civil War.  There is no mention of precedent for its formation outside of the interactions with the other black regiment.  We know the 54th was not the first black regiment formed, nor the first group in combat, especially considering the sailors engaged in naval combat... The creation of Cpl. Thomas Searles character is equally problematic.  He seems to be there only to create the extra drama of a friend of Shaw&amp;#039;s in the unit.  If the film producers wanted to communicate the experience of a Northern, educated black man in the regiment, introducing Douglass&amp;#039; sons would have been far more interesting. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Colors: in Gooding&amp;#039;s June 20 letter, he describes the attack on Ft. Wagner, including that Shaw took up the State colors after the first bearer was killed on the parapet, and that once he was killed a Sgt. Carney saved the colors, and even said the flag never touched the ground.  Yet the movie portrays it very differently!  Not only do we see both the US and the regimental flag on the ground when the 54th is taking cover behind a dune once the battle starts, but then we see Shaw assessing the situation and the US flag on the ground in front of him.  Ironically, once he and the colorer-bearer get up and the latter is shot, Shaw, rather than pick up the colors, surges on, is shot, and dies falling onto the fallen colors!  I don&amp;#039;t know why it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been heroic to show Shaw carrying the colors AND dying on them.  After Denzel unsuccessfully tries to rescue the flag, we see both flags conspicuously in the picture gaining ground until the end, all the while both fully intact.  The filmmakers took license in order to show the character of Private Trip, who has a change of heart and will carry the colors after all.  And what can be more symbolic than for Old Glory to always be seen and to make it as far as the farthest soldier onto the fort? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the readings it mentioned how great the regiment was discipline wise and were great with marching etc... I felt that the movie correctly portrayed how quickly they learned the discipline of military stuffs as was mentioned in the readings --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading “Retaliation in Camp” with Halton and Union troops stated that the colored troops would still fight for the government even though the government didn’t want them. I think the movie portrays this well when Colonel Shaw read the paper stating that if blacks are found on Union lines they could be killed or brought back to their masters and that if the Union leaders were commanding the black troops they also could be tried and killed.  All the colored men stayed and were still risking their lives to fight; even the white majors and colonels stayed such as Shaw and Forbes. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-The letter did seem a little extreme, but keep in mind it was from the Confederate Congress.  How would Union officers be treated if captured while commanding white troops and how would this action play out in the prisoner of war exchange?  Union officers risked their lives commanding black troops, but in the realm of war, were they not already risking their lives in general?  Does it really matter what color troops they were commanding once they entered the battlefield?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Also, I think the Union government did want the slaves as black troops.  The Union needed laborers, thus the contraband of runaway slaves was a good source put to use beginning with sticking them in the navy, putting them to work on the grounds, and eventually, once they were skilled, placing them into combat.  Eventually viewed as good fighters, the Union began to recruit blacks from the north and south for the war effort, at the same time ultimately weakening the south by removing their labor.  After all, what else would the Union do with about a quarter of the southern black population that carried a hint of hatred against confederates?-James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading Gooding&amp;#039;s letters, he mentions the sacking and burning of Darien by Colonel Montgomery and his 2nd SC regiment, which was depicted in the movie.  In the letter, the attack on Darien was depicted as barbaric and extreme, with a footnote sighting the Shaw himself was very disappointed in how Montgomery handled his troops during this attack, how he felt the 2nd SC had gone too far for personal gain, rather than furthering the cause of the Union.  This interpretation was depicted in the movie when Montgomery orders Shaw to have the 54th contribute to the destruction of the town by burning down the mansions and Shaw tries to refuse on moral principles, before Montgomery pulls rank. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...As well as the popular black male actors of the last 20 years, Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...And the last thing that Denzel ever did right in his career. -Cash.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The argument where Morgan verbal owns Denzel is very interesting to the time period and the present. The N-word is discussed and Morgan Freeman says &amp;quot;the only N---- here is you&amp;quot; to Denzel. It is dealing with a perception of black people by whites and blacks themselves that is super relevant today. Morgan calls Denzel out on his anger and hatred and callousness toward everybody, telling him basically that he just hates himself. Using the N-word is debated amongst blacks, some for it, taking it back, others against it, saying it is self-deprecating, like in this case with Denzel&amp;#039;s character. Most of these themey, dramatic, pointed moments in the film are kind of cheesey, but this scene was amazing and very effective.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; seemed to generally be received well by the public.  It has been dubbed as the most &amp;quot;technically realistic and memorable Civil War reenactment.&amp;quot;  Denzel Washington received his first Oscar in the Supporting Actor category.  Glory could be argued for in being the best film of the year (it wasn&amp;#039;t nominated for Best Picture), but if you look at the films it would have to compete against - Born on the Fourth of July, Driving Miss Daisy (the winner), and Field of Dreams - it would be a tough argument.  The other movies mentioned also dealt with the themes of War and Racism (except for Field of Dreams), something Glory needed to combine.  You would think with the star power the film had (Matthew Broderick/Ferris Bueller and Morgan Freeman, who ended up being nominated for Lead Actor for Driving Miss Daisy) that it should have gotten more recognition by the public.  Or, maybe this movie should be one for historians to claim and praise for themselves. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The stutter really got to me - I felt like some of the stereotypes hindered the films purpose of glorifying the dedicated soldiers, and  actually made me think of mammy and sissy from Gone with the Wind. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, there is just no pleasing you, is there? I personally thought the movie was one of the first examples in this class that showed a well-rounded, diverse group of people in one particular place and time period. There was minimal stock character presence or cheap stereotyping. And really, do people have to get uppity every time a minority is portrayed as a villain, or as stupid, or as handicapped, or as ignorant, or as poor...? White dudes get portrayed in these ways too in movies. In fact, some white dudes in this movie fall into one or more of the previously mentioned qualities! --Jackie Reed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing about the stereotype that amuses me is that once the 54th is in SC, a slave is talking to the Northern, educated, &amp;quot;Snowflake&amp;quot; Thomas, and he needs the wise old Freeman to interpret the dialect for him!  But maybe I just like that because I like linguistics. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but notice that the music sounded familiar. It sounded very similar to the music in Apollo 13. I did some investigation (thanks to IMDB) and discovered that both movies have the same musical composer. While I do think the composer could have been a little more original in Apollo 13, since this movie came out first, they&amp;#039;re still great songs. This is just something I found pretty interesting. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it pertains to War Movie Scores, when I was typing one of my posts the Gettysburg Theme by John Williams came on my ipod. I love the music in that movie, and I love that movie. I say this because after this week we leave the Civil War era and I wanted to acknowledge it. I suppose this is a question more directed at Dr. McClurken but open to anyone, how does that movie rank in terms of historical accuracy? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, if you ever get a chance to read Killer Angels, DO SO IMMEDIATELY. They are both fantastic, near-perfect reports on how the battle went. Having taken several Gettysburg tours, and written even more papers on the topic, I can tell you; they got it right. -Cash.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning there was a scene with Union troops playing baseball, would they have played baseball during the war at their camps? Also, later in the film I noticed the golden eagle statue on the top of the flap poles, was the eagle already adopted as the nation&amp;#039;s symbol? If so, was it already being used and displayed on flags as such?--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked this in my blog, but I&amp;#039;m going to ask it here too.  Wasn&amp;#039;t flogging actually illegal in the US Military before the Civil War?  I thought you couldn&amp;#039;t whip in the Army anymore but they obviously punished Trip in that fashion.  I could be wrong though.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did blacks really treat each other differently based upon education? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley, baseball as a sport is cited as being played as early as the 1830s.  It&amp;#039;s not unlikely that the Americans would have developed their own version of cricket as early as this point.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As to the stereotypes, I wanted to quote Toplin, since I think he said it pretty well. &amp;quot;Glory... focus[ed] on a group of black soldiers that included a gung-ho intellectual, a surly rebel who learned to be a team player, an older father figure, and a stuttering former slave.&amp;quot; To be fair, I will say that these stereotypes had to have their basis in something.. or perhaps that&amp;#039;s all of the Hollywood movies I&amp;#039;ve seen that have convinced me that these characters could sometimes be real. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
I loved the symbolism at the end with Denzel Washington hugging Matthew Broderick after they&amp;#039;re thrown into the heap of dead bodies. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just have to say, especially since we&amp;#039;re not having class tomorrow, I can&amp;#039;t stand Matthew Broderick&amp;#039;s little goatee-like thing.  I think just the mustache would have sufficed. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before they go into Battle Shaw asks who will bear the colors if they are to fall, Thomas says that he will. When the colors do fall in battle, Thomas and Trip look at one another and Thomas gives Trip a look that says &amp;quot;well, I&amp;#039;m not going to pick them up&amp;quot; so Trip gallantly recovers them. Thomas is portrayed as a coward who would not live up to his word, fight heroically for his country, or avenge the death of Shaw who had treated him with nothing but fairness (even though it is understandable if Thomas felt slighted by that treatment). The fact that Trip takes the colors shows that a former slave who had every reason to resent whites, was so inspired by the promise of winning the war and gaining equality that he would die for the cause. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first time I saw this movie was in middle school. We had to watch this movie and Gettysburg (pending parental permission of course) in our lessons on the Civil War. I find it interesting remembering that much of what I took to know about the war in regards to slavery came from this movie up until high school. For those who haven&amp;#039;t really studied the Civil War, movies like this may be all that they have to go on.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that the other black regiments wore red paints instead of the blue ones is that used to dissern the regiments apart or was that a common thing in the union forces?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember loving this movie in 7th grade when I first saw it. I have to say now, after a more in depth education on the civil war, I don&amp;#039;t really like it as much. It just doesn&amp;#039;t have the same meaning that it used to hold. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt-- I don&amp;#039;t know about the 2nd SC in particular, but in the Civil War it was not uncommon for there to be some regiments with different uniforms, either Confederate or Union.  Early in the war (1861), Union units did not all receive the same uniform--it tended to be whatever the government could get for them, being a variety of mostly blue, navy, and gray in different items (Confederates being equally varied and often making their own at that point).  There were a number of &amp;quot;Zouave&amp;quot; regiments (originally French ones, but by the Civil War they were more varied and numerous) that were known to have their uniforms, usually of North African (e.g. Moroccan) influence, often incorporating red for trim, pants, or fezes. -Whitney H.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-08T04:32:41Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To tag onto Lauren&amp;#039;s comment a bit - I felt that the confrontation between white union soldiers and the 54th regiment was realistic, as well as the trouble that Shaw and company encountered in convincing the supplier to give them shoes etc. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although many think that the 54th MA was the first black regiment in the Civil War, as it is more symbolic and is the one Glory is all about, the filmmakers try to prevent that misperception.  When Shaw meets Montgomery, he is asked something like, &amp;quot;you didn&amp;#039;t think yours was the only colored regiment, did you?&amp;quot; and we learn that the 2d SC existed before the 54th MA did. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Whitney&amp;#039;s comment - I disagree that the film makers did other black regiments justice - they didn&amp;#039;t acknowledge other blacks actually fighting, and they portrayed them as &amp;quot;chimps in uniform&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;children&amp;quot; in the scene where they ransack the town of the &amp;#039;cessors. The movie seemed to make the 54th regiment the ONE exception to the rule and Shaw a great hero for respecting and believing in his black troops. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&amp;#039;s a very good point, Elle. It was portrayed very negatively. -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice how perfect the feet of the dead men on the beach were?  Pretty good healing after nasty feet from not having had boots. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Colors: in Gooding&amp;#039;s June 20 letter, he describes the attack on Ft. Wagner, including that Shaw took up the State colors after the first bearer was killed on the parapet, and that once he was killed a Sgt. Carney saved the colors, and even said the flag never touched the ground.  Yet the movie portrays it very differently!  Not only do we see both the US and the regimental flag on the ground when the 54th is taking cover behind a dune once the battle starts, but then we see Shaw assessing the situation and the US flag on the ground in front of him.  Ironically, once he and the colorer-bearer get up and the latter is shot, Shaw, rather than pick up the colors, surges on, is shot, and dies falling onto the fallen colors!  I don&amp;#039;t know why it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been heroic to show Shaw carrying the colors AND dying on them.  After Denzel unsuccessfully tries to rescue the flag, we see both flags conspicuously in the picture gaining ground until the end, all the while both fully intact.  The filmmakers took license in order to show the character of Private Trip, who has a change of heart and will carry the colors after all.  And what can be more symbolic than for Old Glory to always be seen and to make it as far as the farthest soldier onto the fort? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...As well as the popular black male actors of the last 20 years, Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The stutter really got to me - I felt like some of the stereotypes hindered the films purpose of glorifying the dedicated soldiers, and  actually made me think of mammy and sissy from Gone with the Wind. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing about the stereotype that amuses me is that once the 54th is in SC, a slave is talking to the Northern, educated, &amp;quot;Snowflake&amp;quot; Thomas, and he needs the wise old Freeman to interpret the dialect for him!  But maybe I just like that because I like linguistics. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-08T02:01:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although many think that the 54th MA was the first black regiment in the Civil War, as it is more symbolic and is the one Glory is all about, the filmmakers try to prevent that misperception.  When Shaw meets Montgomery, he is asked something like, &amp;quot;you didn&amp;#039;t think yours was the only colored regiment, did you?&amp;quot; and we learn that the 2d SC existed before the 54th MA did. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice how perfect the feet of the dead men on the beach were?  Pretty good healing after nasty feet from not having had boots. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Colors: in Gooding&amp;#039;s June 20 letter, he describes the attack on Ft. Wagner, including that Shaw took up the State colors after the first bearer was killed on the parapet, and that once he was killed a Sgt. Carney saved the colors, and even said the flag never touched the ground.  Yet the movie portrays it very differently!  Not only do we see both the US and the regimental flag on the ground when the 54th is taking cover behind a dune once the battle starts, but then we see Shaw assessing the situation and the US flag on the ground in front of him.  Ironically, once he and the colorer-bearer get up and the latter is shot, Shaw, rather than pick up the colors, surges on, is shot, and dies falling onto the fallen colors!  I don&amp;#039;t know why it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been heroic to show Shaw carrying the colors AND dying on them.  After Denzel unsuccessfully tries to rescue the flag, we see both flags conspicuously in the picture gaining ground until the end, all the while both fully intact.  The filmmakers took license in order to show the character of Private Trip, who has a change of heart and will carry the colors after all.  And what can be more symbolic than for Old Glory to always be seen and to make it as far as the farthest soldier onto the fort? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...As well as the popular black male actors of the last 20 years, Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing about the stereotype that amuses me is that once the 54th is in SC, a slave is talking to the Northern, educated, &amp;quot;Snowflake&amp;quot; Thomas, and he needs the wise old Freeman to interpret the dialect for him!  But maybe I just like that because I like linguistics. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-08T01:55:28Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although many think that the 54th MA was the first black regiment in the Civil War, as it is more symbolic and is the one Glory is all about, the filmmakers try to prevent that misperception.  When Shaw meets Montgomery, he is asked something like, &amp;quot;you didn&amp;#039;t think yours was the only colored regiment, did you?&amp;quot; and we learn that the 2d SC existed before the 54th MA did. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Colors: in Gooding&amp;#039;s June 20 letter, he describes the attack on Ft. Wagner, including that Shaw took up the State colors after the first bearer was killed on the parapet, and that once he was killed a Sgt. Carney saved the colors, and even said the flag never touched the ground.  Yet the movie portrays it very differently!  Not only do we see both the US and the regimental flag on the ground when the 54th is taking cover behind a dune once the battle starts, but then we see Shaw assessing the situation and the US flag on the ground in front of him.  Ironically, once he and the colorer-bearer get up and the latter is shot, Shaw, rather than pick up the colors, surges on, is shot, and dies falling onto the fallen colors!  I don&amp;#039;t know why it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been heroic to show Shaw carrying the colors AND dying on them.  After Denzel unsuccessfully tries to rescue the flag, we see both flags conspicuously in the picture gaining ground until the end, all the while both fully intact.  The filmmakers took license in order to show the character of Private Trip, who has a change of heart and will carry the colors after all.  And what can be more symbolic than for Old Glory to always be seen and to make it as far as the farthest soldier onto the fort? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...As well as the popular black male actors of the last 20 years, Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing about the stereotype that amuses me is that once the 54th is in SC, a slave is talking to the Northern, educated, &amp;quot;Snowflake&amp;quot; Thomas, and he needs the wise old Freeman to interpret the dialect for him!  But maybe I just like that because I like linguistics. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-08T01:50:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although many think that the 54th MA was the first black regiment in the Civil War, as it is more symbolic and is the one Glory is all about, the filmmakers try to prevent that misperception.  When Shaw meets Montgomery, he is asked something like, &amp;quot;you didn&amp;#039;t think yours was the only colored regiment, did you?&amp;quot; and we learn that the 2d SC existed before the 54th MA did. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Colors: in Gooding&amp;#039;s June 20 letter, he describes the attack on Ft. Wagner, including that Shaw took up the State colors after the first bearer was killed on the parapet, and that once he was killed a Sgt. Carney saved the colors, and even said the flag never touched the ground.  Yet the movie portrays it very differently!  Not only do we see both the US and the regimental flag on the ground when the 54th is taking cover behind a dune once the battle starts, but then we see Shaw assessing the situation and the US flag on the ground in front of him.  Ironically, once he and the colorer-bearer get up and the latter is shot, Shaw, rather than pick up the colors, surges on, is shot, and dies falling onto the fallen colors!  I don&amp;#039;t know why it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been heroic to show Shaw carrying the colors AND dying on them.  After Denzel unsuccessfully tries to rescue the flag, we see both flags conspicuously in the picture gaining ground until the end, all the while both fully intact.  The filmmakers took license in order to show the character of Private Trip, who has a change of heart and will carry the colors after all.  And what can be more symbolic than for Old Glory to always be seen and to make it as far as the farthest soldier onto the fort? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...As well as the popular black male actors of the last 20 years, Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-08T01:36:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although many think that the 54th MA was the first black regiment in the Civil War, as it is more symbolic and is the one Glory is all about, the filmmakers try to prevent that misperception.  When Shaw meets Montgomery, he is asked something like, &amp;quot;you didn&amp;#039;t think yours was the only colored regiment, did you?&amp;quot; and we learn that the 2d SC existed before the 54th MA did. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Colors: in Gooding&amp;#039;s June 20 letter, he describes the attack on Ft. Wagner, including that Shaw took up the State colors after the first bearer was killed on the parapet, and that once he was killed a Sgt. Carney saved the colors, and even said the flag never touched the ground.  Yet the movie portrays it very differently!  Not only do we see both the US and the regimental flag on the ground when the 54th is taking cover behind a dune once the battle starts, but then we see Shaw assessing the situation and the US flag on the ground in front of him.  Ironically, once he and the colorer-bearer get up and the latter is shot, Shaw, rather than pick up the colors, surges on, is shot, and dies falling onto the fallen colors!  I don&amp;#039;t know why it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been heroic to show Shaw carrying the colors AND dying on them.  After Denzel unsuccessfully tries to rescue the flag, we see both flags conspicuously in the picture gaining ground until the end, all the while both fully intact.  The filmmakers took license in order to show the character of Private Trip, who has a change of heart and will carry the colors after all.  And what can be more symbolic than for Old Glory to always be seen and to make it as far as the farthest soldier onto the fort? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-08T01:09:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Colors: in Gooding&amp;#039;s June 20 letter, he describes the attack on Ft. Wagner, including that Shaw took up the State colors after the first bearer was killed on the parapet, and that once he was killed a Sgt. Carney saved the colors, and even said the flag never touched the ground.  Yet the movie portrays it very differently!  Not only do we see both the US and the regimental flag on the ground when the 54th is taking cover behind a dune once the battle starts, but then we see Shaw assessing the situation and the US flag on the ground in front of him.  Ironically, once he and the colorer-bearer get up and the latter is shot, Shaw, rather than pick up the colors, surges on, is shot, and dies falling onto the fallen colors!  I don&amp;#039;t know why it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been heroic to show Shaw carrying the colors AND dying on them.  After Denzel unsuccessfully tries to rescue the flag, we see both flags conspicuously in the picture gaining ground until the end, all the while both fully intact.  The filmmakers took license in order to show the character of Private Trip, who has a change of heart and will carry the colors after all.  And what can be more symbolic than for Old Glory to always be seen and to make it as far as the farthest soldier onto the fort? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-08T00:09:49Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of colored men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for colored men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-02T06:01:31Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jackie said, there were a lot of things that the movie did get right, such as one scene where Rhett tells Scarlett that she has to date him because &amp;quot;there is no one else around older than 16 and younger than 60 to show [her] a good time.&amp;quot;  As we discussed in class, most of the men in the South during the Civil War between those ages were off fighting, and many of them died, posing a problem for the women back at home.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job at portraying history to many degrees.  Certain scenes really put the viewer into historical perspective, such as the scene that shows the Yankees offering currently freed blacks 40 acres and a mule.  The scene in which Ashley explains to Scarlett that using forced prison labor was less ethical than using “darkies” because any forced labor was a moral wrong goes to show that white slave owners who held slaves may have saw themselves as not practicing any form of forced labor.  Even Ashley states that there was a major difference between the treatment of chained prisoners and his slaves, as he boasts he treated his slaves much better.  James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Rhett Butler&amp;#039;s first lines in this film is him explaining how the North was better equipped than the South, a reason why they shouldn&amp;#039;t have gone into war in the first place.  He states that while the North was armed with factories, superior weapons, and coal mines, all the South had were &amp;quot;slaves, cotton, and arrogance.&amp;quot;  This is a nice summary of the South&amp;#039;s economic dependence on the production of cotton, which is of course directly dependent on slave labor.  Furthermore, the &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; can be interpreted as their belief in white supremacy and how that may have driven the South to go to war (which the movie eventually proved to be destructive to them). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depiction of the civil war &amp;quot;hospitals&amp;quot; to be at least mildly accurate. They gave no sense of cleanliness or sterility, and were at times gruesome as Scarlett couldn&amp;#039;t handle bearing witness to the amputation sans chloroform. Perhaps there were some instances of nurse touching in the movie which was not allowed in real life, but it did portray one lady writing a letter for an incapacitated man as mentioned in the lecture. Also there was some sense that disease played just as important a role in the death toll as the war wounds. Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband falls to pneumonia, her mother to typhoid, and there were allusions to lice and other diseases in the &amp;quot;hospitals.&amp;quot; -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Post-traumatic stress/depression displayed by the returning Confederate soldiers was at least shown in the movie, though not named. Ashley came back and he was not happy with the destroyed life he came back to. He lost his sense of being a man.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a great job with portraying the notion of the romanticized southern history and lifestyle. The nation is on the brink of civil war yet in the movie they are having a grand ole time at the bbq and various balls. As the men are discussing the war, they believe it is more important to be gentlemen who know how to use their words as oppose to discussing potential strategies. Rhett Butler is ostracized for explaining that the North has a better chance of winning the war because they have factories, ship yards, coal mines and other necessary supplies. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe the southern gender roles are accurately portrayed, most especially in the beginning/first half of the movie. Concerning the elite class, the women are dainty, southern belles who wear big dresses and flaunt fancy, elaborate hats. Marriage was intended for money and land, which is explained when Mr. O&amp;#039;Hara explains to  Scarlett that it doesn&amp;#039;t matter who you marry just as long as he&amp;#039;s southern and thinks the same way. While the women are upstairs napping, the men are downstairs smoking, drinking and talking man business such as war. The movie is pretty stereotypical of what people believed and how they acted at the time. The movie shows how the South was convinced that it would be victorious because the soldiers were defending slavery, cotton, and southern land. The movie truly turned the North into the villain, which was a prevailing belief in the South. The South was not a fan base for Abraham Lincoln. In her journal, Ella explains her despise for Lincoln and in the movie Scarlett tells Rhett at the fundraiser that on that night she would have even danced with Abraham Lincoln.  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It really does portray the romanticized version of the south, most people take a good part of this movie to explain what they know about southern history. The movie did a good job portraying the different challenges women faced when the war started.  They were thrown into new and different roles on top of having to do the different tasks they had to before the war. Mallory at that point in the movie when Scarlett tells Rhett that she would have danced with Lincoln she still hates Rhett he is just a way for her to have fun and enjoy herself. She is so miserable not being able to have fun since she is a widow that she will take any opportunity to have a good time. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the scene at the hospital although not completely accurate does do a very good job at depicting how gruesome a Civil War hospital was. Many people got horrible injuries many people had to have limbs amputated. The movie also does a great job showing depression and trauma in people after the events of the war especially in men. Mr. Wilks and Scarlett&amp;#039;s father are both prominent examples of depression in the movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the reconstruction part of the film Ashley says, &amp;quot;There is no place for me.&amp;quot; - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Coming home from the war the men seem emasculated. They are no longer able to care for their dependents and they have lost a war that has left the South devastated. This can be seen in Ashley and Scarlett&amp;#039;s father. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:00, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just out of curiosity, I know Rhett was against the war (for most of it) but was still a Captain.  How many men had the same luxuries Rhett did and how many really shared his opinion?  It seemed to me that most of the men were excited to go off and join the war (just think of that scene at Twelve Oaks) but Rhett was against the idea behind it and never &amp;#039;&amp;#039;had&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to go fight.  Why not?  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, although Scarlet was rather independent for a woman of her time, you still saw the sense of &amp;quot;submissiveness&amp;quot; I guess you could say, that women had towards men.  At one point, Rhett looks at Scarlet and says &amp;quot;now blow your nose like a good little girl&amp;quot; and she did as she was told.  Women may have had more power than they would have liked, and in some cases enjoyed it like Scarlet, but there was still that sense of dominance that men had over women.  Even after Ashley came back and was completely distraught from the war one of Scarlet&amp;#039;s first instincts was &amp;quot;Ashley will know what to do.&amp;quot;  The men were still thought to have had all the answers.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the characters do a fair job in symbolizing the bigger ideas of gender roles during the Civil War and Reconstruction period. Scarlett and Melly take over their households, raise money for the war, and work as nurses. Scarlett, especially, has to handle all the aspects of caring for her family, friends, and Tara. At the war’s end Melly is perfectly content to go back to being subservient to men, like most women. Scarlett, however, is in the minority who didn’t go back to their normal roles. Though she does remarry, she clearly doesn’t give Mr. Kennedy any control over her, and she pretty much takes over his business and starts up another in lumbering. Despite all that, the movie suggests that even someone as strong as Scarlett wants to be dominated by a man (to a certain degree). She was awfully happy the morning after Rhett threatened to kill her and forcefully carried her up those stairs, after all. For the men, Ashley comes back from the war having to rely on Scarlett and unable to provide for the people he cares about, causing him to feel useless and emasculated. He’s also depressed (at least his words suggest this, though he acts depressed the whole damn movie) at the loss of the Old South he once knew. Mr. Kennedy, as mentioned above, is dominated by Scarlett. Even Mr. O’Hara is rendered ineffective by the war. I think Rhett is the only man to remain “manly” the entire time, but he ain’t no gentleman. In fact, I would say that Rhett and Scarlett also provide a contrast to the Old South image of ladylike and gentlemanly conduct. As Rhett says, “Bad lots, both of us. Selfish and shrewd.” Perhaps it’s appropriate in a movie that depicts the downfall of the Old South for the leads to be cads, but it’s still interesting as the film also glorifies that moonlight and magnolias Southern comfort way of life. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that&amp;#039;s maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It&amp;#039;s been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that &amp;quot;illegal raid&amp;quot; was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- I also noticed the lack of mention about the KKK and after doing some research found this on IMDB, (so veracity may or may not be accurate): Producer David O. Selznick said that he had no desire to remake The Birth of a Nation (1915), telling screenwriter Sidney Howard in 1937, &amp;quot;I do hope you will agree with me on this omission of what might come out as an unintentional advertisement for intolerant societies in these fascist-ridden times...&amp;quot; So maybe this is more telling of the time in which it was made more than anything.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:20, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be nit-picky, but the scenes where Scarlett and Melanie are working as nurses for the wounded soldiers, they are bandaging the soldiers and taking their temperatures.  As we discussed in class, female nurses at this time would not be doing things like that; it would have been considered inappropriate, and they would have been doing tasks such as writing letters home for soldiers.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to women’s roles, it is apparent that Scarlet takes full advantage of the men being away. She keeps her role even when they return, managing the farm, the mill, the store, and her countless husbands. This example is of a truly one of a kind woman, and I don’t think (from my knowledge on gender roles etc.) that many women welcomed that much more responsibility, or were bold enough to take it into their own hands. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to mention Sherman’s march – sure Sherman wasn’t the nicest, but the Yankees are so villain-ized that it proves how much hatred there really was between the confederates and Yankees. Even from what is considered a southern state, Virginia, I was never taught such a one sided account. One thing that was overlooked that we discussed in class was the Confederates’ path of destruction as well – they tried to eliminate food sources that the Yankees could later stumble upon. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie&amp;#039;s romanticizing of the antebellum South, it appeared to me that the movie completely glossed over whites who were not in the planter class elite. There were no representations of the poor whites, or really any whites who owned less than a score of slaves who were not city dwellers. Also, though there was a mention of some of the O&amp;#039;Hara slaves running off, many slaves chose to remain very loyal to the family despite the South&amp;#039;s tenuous hold on slavery. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Melanie supposed to be absolutely ignorant that Scarlett loves Ashley?  She and Scarlett were very close since Charles died and Scarlett moved in with her and her aunt, but part of Scarlett&amp;#039;s friendship is just a facade, because she promised her love that she&amp;#039;d look after Melanie.  You&amp;#039;d think that it wouldn&amp;#039;t take 8 or so years for someone to see Scarlett in Ashley&amp;#039;s arms and pick up on something. - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whitney, Melanie is not ignorant to that fact that Scarlett love Ashley but she is such a good person that she doesn&amp;#039;t want to believe in bad things.  Melanie chooses to ignore that fact. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the deal with Scarlett&amp;#039;s cleavage?  Every other woman is dressed modestly except for Belle (no coincidence).  Once Scarlett returns to Tara and her father, she takes to wearing her pink dress WAY unbuttoned, and after that it seems like the only time you don&amp;#039;t see bare chest is when she&amp;#039;s in mourning!  But when she gets money and all these nice new clothes she does buy some dresses that cover her up more.  This all seems quite scandalous to be in a movie in 1939.  Someone mentioned &amp;quot;Aviator&amp;quot;--do you remember the cleavage discussion that went on with the board of censors? Yeah.  How easy was it to get that much on screen for GWTW? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as censor issues go for this movie, I mostly think language and content was the issue--not cleavage. When comparing the chest size of Hughe&amp;#039;s muse Jane Russell and Vivien Leigh it doesn&amp;#039;t seem to be as big a deal you know? They weren&amp;#039;t pushing the envelope much more than anyone else was back then. And plus, this was a BIG budget movie that was highly publicized and popular before filming even began so censors would not have even had much power over it. Alos keep in mind, they were probably sending things to the Prod. Code Office for approval throughout production. The two censor issues I know of were the lines &amp;quot;I don&amp;#039;t give a damn&amp;quot; (got away with it cuz the emphasis was on &amp;quot;give&amp;quot; and not &amp;quot;damn&amp;quot;  and the line &amp;quot;maybe you&amp;#039;ll get luck and have an miscarriage&amp;quot; which had to be changed to &amp;quot;have an accident.&amp;quot;--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken mentioned in his lecture that men who returned home after the war stepped back into their patriarchal roles, but Ashley acted so feminine, like he lost all hope of regaining his masculinity. It seemed to me that his wife tried her best to keep both of their spirits afloat as they did their best to survive. Does anyone else think that or do people disagree? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this movie first came out it was pretty much given a rated of X which then was similar to our now a days R.  I have grown up watching this with my grandmother and I remember her telling me that when it first came out she was forbidden to go see it by her parents.  She would have been around 15 at that time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way slaves and the union were portrayed in this movie was a big problem for accuracy. Even after the war the slaves have not left Scarlett and they are still submissive to her and working for her which is just not accurate at all. The key black characters in the movie are shown as completely devoted to Scarlett even after she treats them like crap and the war is over. The movie is entirely biased in that the union perspective is never shown and in the small scenes it does show union characters these scenes all portray negative stereotypes. When a movie is so clearly biased it loses a lot of historical credibility. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Darkies&amp;quot; seems like more of a &amp;#039;30s thing to me. Was it? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where was Sharecropping in the film? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Margaret Mitchell&amp;#039;s biggest issues with the film had to do with how the filmmakers portrayed the actual plantation houses.  Although Tara and Twelve Oaks were plantations, Mitchell felt that the filmmakers made them far too luxurious.  She intended both estates to be significantly more modest.  Of course, audiences would respond much better to the overblown Greek Revival mansions with double staircases and interiors that rival Napoleon III&amp;#039;s apartments at the Louvre.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aside from the idealization of the Old South, I think one of the biggest inaccuracies in the movie is the issue of slavery. The slaves at Tara and Twelve Oaks aren’t mistreated. Mr. O’Hara even scolds Scarlett for pushing them so hard. Of course, Mammy, Prissy, and Pork don’t run away during or after the war. Big Sam even goes back to Tara because he’s “had enough of those carpetbaggers.” And the O’Hara slaves think of themselves as miles above all that poor white trash riffraff, and they’re also willing to blatantly backtalk and boss around their masters. The worst threat of bodily harm is when Scarlett yells that she’ll whip Prissy for being completely unhelpful when Melly is in labor, but we know she won’t do it. If such a family was that kind toward their slaves, they probably would have been the pariahs of the South. To add on to those inaccuracies, there’s the fact that every black person in the movie is a stereotype: the overbearing mammy, the large gentle giant, the ignorant ninny, and so on. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Lauren on the issue with Ashley’s return to home. He did not step up to his masculinity roles and in a way depended on Scarlett to help him. Scarlett was running the household and keeping people’s hopes up. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An issue I felt was inaccurate was the scene where the African American nanny received a red dress from the captain as a gift. Would Southerners actually do this for their servants? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The house slaves all seemed to be treated a lot nicer than I had expected. They were still slaves, yeah? As for Whitney&amp;#039;s point about Scarlett&amp;#039;s cleavage, let&amp;#039;s think of who the big (no pun intended) actresses were of the time. Mae West and Rita Hayworth. Sex sold back then just as it does now. As Jewel said, &amp;quot;follow me, the blonde bombshell diety, I&amp;#039;ll sell you neat ideas without big words and a little bit of cleavage to wash it all down.&amp;quot; --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And yes. I just quoted Jewel. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
George Fitzhugh’s “The Blessings of Slavery” shows how ignorant white southern slave owners can be. The idea that a person is more happy in forced servitude than as a free citizen is ridiculous. Beyond that, it  meshes with stories of other slaveholders that were surprised when their slaves ran away – treating slaves well is better than treating them terribly, but they are still slaves. Gone with the Wind falls into this ignorance. Like most film productions where southern whites are slaveholders, the slaves love their masters like family. Mammy, Sissy, etc. (I can’t help but flashback to the Patriot as Mel helps his free black friends plow the field). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes the portrayal of slaves is extremely absurd in this movie in relation to actual scholarship and history. From the readings it is clear that after the war the slaves were freed and left the plantations. The slaves would not come back to the same families they were enslaved by before and when they did show up again their former owners wanted them gone. The movie takes the ideas of patternalism seriously even though it was just a delusion of Southern Whites. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the primary sources we read dealt with both Whites and Blacks dealing with the after math of Emancipation. Whites unsure of what to do with the free labor society thrust upon them and Blacks surprising Whites by packing their grip and leaving. Gone with the Wind barely even mentions it as if they didn&amp;#039;t even notice that this monumental change had taken place. It was definitely a White-centric view of the fall of aristocratic South.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:04, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Schurz&amp;#039;s text, he discusses the fact that a very small minority of people were able to continue having regular lives and move forward after the war. Scarlett and Rhett seem to represent special cases of people, and can&amp;#039;t be applied to the rest of the reconstructing south. As to the KKK article, we could give the movie credit for not coming out and saying that the men went to kill the African-Americans, but simply all of the men at the outskirt camp, since the article does discuss the murder of white men and women who were friendly to the abolition cause. The movie does fail in showing abolitionist characters and instead gives us disgustingly sympathetic-to-their-husbands-crimes wives and violent men. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
So apparently the Civil War only affected white people....  Mammy and Prissy and the other old slave man all stay with Miss Scarlet and her family throughout the whole movie.  Not once is there mention of slaves being emancipated, and not once do the slaves mention being free (although we do see Old Sam is living away from them now, since he became a trench digger).  Through all that post-war poverty, and being the only blacks left on Tara, they stayed loyal.  But of course!  They&amp;#039;d always been treated and fed well and loved their white family and would never think of anything but staying. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The addressing of racial issues in Gone With The Wind was equally infuriating and heartbreaking. The thought that kept rushing through my head during the scenes with Mammy, Pris and Pork was it&amp;#039;s similarity to 1915&amp;#039;s Birth Of A Nation, which cost $110,000 to make and grossed $3 million in the US and $10 million worldwide. Gone With The Wind, to date, has grossed nearly $200 million dollars, after taking just under $4 million to produce. While BOAN was released 24 years previous to GWTW, it is clear that this racism is still prevalent and, as the above numbers show, commercially viable. In both films, the black characters were satirical caricatures of the southern slave population and were often seen not only as members of an inferior race but sometimes even as nothing more than loyal dogs. Human Beings or Man&amp;#039;s Best Friend? Unfortunately, this was clearly the southern attitude towards the black population. I suppose this racism is a great history lesson for those curious about race relations during the antebellum, in-war and post-war years, but it makes both films vastly uncomfortable viewing. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found interesting is that none of the slave characters ever talked about their own families (if they had them) or relatives or even other slaves. Is this a matter of people in this period not wanting to hear about real slavery (people who worked outside of the house), or was it just a lack of caring? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was watching TCM a few weeks ago and they did a 15 minute feature on Hattie McDaniel, the actress who played Mamie. Before and after &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; McDaniel was type cast into motherly, domestic roles hundreds of times. McDaniel was respected in Hollywood (for what it was/is worth) and won an academy award for best supporting actress for her role as Mamie. Her roles as a domestic caretaker often caricatured blacks by being boisterous and plainspoken. Those portrayals helped make black characters appear lovable and benign, while simultaneously implying that they were subservient and not to be taken seriously. McDaniel and other black actresses were criticized for taking roles which allegedly validated or at least perpetuated the servile status of blacks. McDaniel said “I’d rather play a maid for $700 a week than be one for $7”. I think this movie is as strong a primary source as it is a secondary source, for it reveals the complexity of race relations in this country in the late 1930s. On one hand, blacks had acting jobs, so that is progress from the era of blackface. On the other hand, those acting roles depicted blacks as servants with no desire to advance. McDaniel’s own comment conveys a certain contentment with being a stock character, which sent the message that she was content with being a second class citizen. What did it say to blacks at the time that one of their most beloved actresses was not willing to rock the boat? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
-Definitely have to agree with Jason here. I was thinking about the movie Hollywood Shuffle (1987) and it deals with the tension   between Blacks actors either playing a stereotyped Black role or making no money at all. It is a sign on what time this film was created in that most actors had no choice and their wasn&amp;#039;t really much room for being morally virtouos in choosing roles.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:13, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t take this movie as a primary source at all. No one apparrently ever does work in the south. Every slave is apparintly seen as a &amp;quot;sambo&amp;quot; never tired, never worrying about punishment. They have absolutly no quarrels with being slaves at any point and seem to love their masters. The things I did notice to be kinda right were the southern mens attitude toward war. GWTW depicts the importance of military school to southern men. but none of the men seem to even go to school and life always comes off as a party down in the south. The problem with the movie is that  its writen with a romatic (Art form not love) veiw on life. This does depicts the movie from the eyes of a sotherner. --Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jason that this movie is probably one of the best for use as a primary source that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far in class. This is most evident in the scenes involving the slaves. Though as previously mentioned the characters are no longer blackface clad white actors, they are still playing the same character types as before. The men are all dim-witted and lazy. Particularly striking were the scenes of the one male slave chasing the rooster around in the mud as he mumbles to himself and the &amp;quot;quitting time&amp;quot; scene near the beginning of the film. I assume these were meant to be humorous scenes, of course at the expense of the slaves. Then there is Prissy and Mammy. Though both are female, neither character is portrayed in any way which may allude to an attractiveness, nor any other discernible feminine qualities. This was especially evident when the black actresses shared screen time with any of the white actresses. Prissy was relentlessly childlike and helpless, accented by her squeaky voice and cowardly demeanor.  Mammy was the sassy, though obedient, servant with no concerns of her own. Essentially this movie is a time capsule to prevailing racist views in 1939.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayals of the black slaves [later servants] was incredibly painful to watch at times.  The idea of a content &amp;quot;sambo&amp;quot; character typical of those working around Tara is clearly accurate to what we have discussed white slave owners having convinced themselves to be typical, but equally distant from reality.  We know that slave owners were thus genuinely surprised when freed slaves up and left their plantations, since they couldn&amp;#039;t believe their slaves had not been content working for them.  The primary source implication of this is that readers and viewers of Gone With The Wind could use this material to RE-convince themselves of that absurd idea.  The film may therefore contribute to whites of the late 30s and 40s having a misunderstanding of the discontentment leading up to the Civil Rights Movement. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of going with JT&amp;#039;s comment, and I may be completely off base here, but to me it seemed as if the filmmakers were making a mockery of the slaves in the movie.  I mean, poor Pork seemed to have been an idiot during most of the movie and I honestly wanted to slap Prissy&amp;#039;s character.  I feel as if that was completely unfair and I think it shows a sort of influence of &amp;#039;30s attitudes towards blacks.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Whitney on finding it weird that the slaves were loyal to the family.  The younger girl Prissy though did show some signs of being equal with Scarlette when Scarlette sent Prissy to fetch the doctor; she made a face behind Scarlette’s back. Did most slaves actually flee the South when the Union troops invaded? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The book was a bestseller, the movie was an instant classic, but Why?  Nostalgia. Americans love the way things used to be even if they never were that way. The only positive representation we got of the South was before the war, and the only representation of the antebellum South was the wealthiest 0.2% of it. The middle 90% of the movie depicted a South that had spiraled into decay, poverty, and criminality at the hands of Yankee invaders and carpetbaggers. The end of the movie brings us full circle as Scarlett says “Tara, I’ll go home and think of someway to get him [Rhett] back, after all, tomorrow is another day!”. To me, Rhett is obviously a metaphor for the antebellum South (of course, he was too benevolent and objective to represent the old South truthfully, but nonetheless that was the intent of his character).  What this closing line insinuates is that the way to fix all of these problems caused by the damn Yankees is to just go back to the way things were. The public sees this film and says “Oh wow, before the Civil War the South was fun and pretty and awesome, even the slaves decided when it was quittin’ time! But how depressing was the rest of the movie, too much heartbreak! Scarlett is going back to Tara, can we come?!?!?!”. The problem was “Tara” only existed to a few hundred thousand people, and actually didn’t even exist like the movie would have us believe. There are MANY other examples throughout the film that regard the South sympathetically…- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How this movie enables the public to sympathize with the South:&lt;br /&gt;
* The raid on the carpetbagger settlement, and the subsequent duping of the Yankee officers. By doing this the film maker’s show the Southerner’s as patriots defending their homeland, while also fooling the dumb Northerners. &lt;br /&gt;
* The film gives the South a complete pass on slavery. Yes, slavery was depicted in the film for 30 seconds, but shows NO cruelty towards blacks. Even in the integrated street scene during the reconstruction segment of the film there was no hostility/ resentment towards blacks. &lt;br /&gt;
* The movie perpetuates the warped belief of paternalism buy having all the blacks who had worked on Tara before the war, stay with the O’ Hara’s throughout the film. Big Sam even came to Scarlett’s rescue. Former slaves would not have done any of this. &lt;br /&gt;
* Mamie seems to be well respected by the family, and interacts with them on equal footing. Furthermore, Rhett gives Mamie a red dress. This tells the audience that domestic slaves were treated well, even lavishly. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Civil War was portrayed as The War of Northern Aggression. This helps the audience see the evils done by the Union Army, while the South plays the role of victim. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rhett is the consummate distinguished Southern gentleman without a bad bone in his body. He was pragmatic and diplomatic in is speeches towards the North. Rhett was so moralistic and level- headed that any cause or ideology could be justified and defended by such an upstanding character. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adjusted for inflation, this film would out-gross Titanic by a long shot.  This film has had an impact, subtle or not, on every film made about the South since its release.  While the South is heavily romanticized, we (the public with a Northern slant) still look down on it as we do with every other culture we romanticize.  In his landmark book Orientalism, Edward Said argued that by romanticizing &amp;quot;Oriental&amp;quot; (Middle Eastern and Asian) culture, Western nations justified their imperial and colonial initiatives.  Gone With the Wind may appear to be a pro-Southern film, but it is actually a manifestation that very justification.  Outside of the former Confederacy (I&amp;#039;m leaving my arguments about Virginia as still being part of the South at the door), audiences viewed and continue to view this film with a Northern influence.  The perpetuation of this romantic stereotype serves to justify the North&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;conquering&amp;quot; of the South.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This doesn’t 100 percent fit in this section but it is relevant.   The actress who played Mammy, Hattie McDaniel, was forced to sit in a segregated section at the Oscars when she won the award for best supporting actress.  This corroborates the racism that is so present in the film and supports our use of it as a primary source about it’s time. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; is beautifully filmed and edited.  The use of color, music and other forms of mise en scene are spectacular, which a whole other class period could be devoted to for discussion.  One of  the scenes that stood out to me was when one of the soldiers comes back from battle and exclaims &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s over, the war is over, we surrendered!&amp;quot;  Immediately after this, the spectrum of reactions from the south is expressed in only a matter of seconds through a couple of lines (these lines are of course paraphrased to the best of my memory):  &amp;quot;Why did we ever go to war?&amp;quot; (feeling of reluctance and regret), &amp;quot;Oh (insert name of husband) is coming home!&amp;quot; (relief that a loved one made it alive), &amp;quot;We surrendered?!?!&amp;quot; (shock of losing the war). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say - the first half.... LONG and BORING. The second half - on the edge of my seat at times. I had to leave for a club meeting (for literally 5 minutes) and it was hard to pry myself away. I must say NOT what I expected. Also, I totally called the deaths of Bonnie (foreshadowing) and Melanie (classic Little Women-like Beth character). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing - symbolism... I felt that Scarlet&amp;#039;s love for Ashley (which tragically ended at the end at his wife&amp;#039;s death, when Scarlet finally really gets a clue and realizes Ashley has loved his wife all along) was symbolic for the death of the south. Not a very uplifting ending. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very nice insights, Elle.  I was just wondering the likelihood of someone like Scarlett&amp;#039;s character truly existing during the Civil War.  Her extremely demanding personality gave me no choice but to stereotype all white women in the south during that time; but, I still feel that nobody that hysterical could really be based off a real person(s).  I know a lot of it probably has to do with dramatic effect, but generalizing off of Elle&amp;#039;s interpretation of Scarlett&amp;#039;s love for Ashley symbolizing the death of the south, is Scarlett&amp;#039;s personality representative of the arrogance of the South and how that lead to severe psychological repercussions?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a demeaning image of a southern white lady, and how awful to have to play that role and reinforce this stereotype!  Scarlett is purely selfish, immature, whiny, vain, stubborn, hysterical, greedy...the list goes on.  Uggh!  And how she is in the beginning turning from one guy to another, entirely insincere and loving attention.  She marries to help herself and spite other men, and it takes until the loving, perfect Melanie dies for her to realize that Ashley was right when he said that he loved his wife and not her, and to realize that Rhett also loved her, like he always said he did.  And I don&amp;#039;t even need to go into her spending habits.  Frankly, I couldn&amp;#039;t give a damn what she did without Rhett, either.  To sum it up, as Elle said, &amp;quot;God, she&amp;#039;s pathetic.&amp;quot; -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is Rhett supposed to have become and stayed a millionaire? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Whitney, the effects of witnessing Scarlett going through her cluttered romantic thoughts and her various cases of whiny rants was at some points mind numbing, but at least she was determined to succeed. James D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I beg to differ on several of the above comments. First off, I LOVE AND WILL FOREVER LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!! The film is amazing in so many ways in its own right but the story Margaret Mitchell invented is beautiful. The characters are each tragically flawed in just the perfect way to make you love them, but mostly hate them and yet keeps you wanting to read it. I went as Scarlet in the red &amp;quot;look your part&amp;quot; dress in 2nd grade, so yeah, I am an undying fan. Scarlet is all of those horrible things but Rhett is a lot of them too. He just admits to them instead of trying to adhere to the hypocrisy of that society until Bonnie comes along. And the movie is ridiculously sad at the end, giving you zero time to breath in between Rhett&amp;#039;s devastation over Scarlet&amp;#039;s miscarriage (a word that they were not allowed to say in 1939 Code Hollywood), to Bonnie&amp;#039;s death and then Melanie&amp;#039;s death and then the final blow of Rhett leaving Scarlet at the precise moment she has her freakin&amp;#039; epiphany. But I love all these characters, even Scarlet- because Melanie (even though she deludes herself into thinking that Scarlet is not in love with Ashley) does see the good qualities of Scarlet, her sense of loyalty and the constant protection she provides to her family. It all seems selfish and she whines to some about having to do it, but in the end she goes back to Tara, the place that gives her strength because it is apart of her identity as the daughter of an Irish man, as a Southerner, as passionate person who demands control over her own life and destiny and will prevail &amp;quot;as God as her witness&amp;quot; even under all the tragedies of the world. It is actually an inspiring character, because she does change in the end (though you can debate that point) for the better. She gains a bit of insight and learns to love those she has taken for granted, and let go of others she had no right to love in the first place (got over her silly girlhood crush basically). I could quote this TIMELESS FILM all night long so I&amp;#039;ll stop before I do.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Rhett gets drunk and sweeps Scarlett off her feet to presumably have &amp;quot;marital relations&amp;quot; with her, when we see her the next morning in her bed, was she smiling because she received multiple orgasms or was she happy for some other reasons? Can it be assume that since Rhett likes to hang around harlots and &amp;quot;bad women&amp;quot; like Belle, that he knows how to be an impeccable lover?-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Hah Lauren, me and my roommate laughed at this scene, I came to the same conclusion you did. I hope Dr. M highlights this one, just for the sheer awkwardness of it all. -Shannon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, Mae West and Rita Hayworth. Just saying. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it really that common of a practice to take group naps in other people&amp;#039;s homes? In the movie it seemed like a common occurrence during parties. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck by the symbolism of the cut away shot at the end. Scarlett standing like the statue of liberty/ lady justice against a blood red sky while the voice over narration says, &amp;quot;After all, tomorrow is another day&amp;quot;. To me this is the South saying, &amp;quot;We stand here full of pride, having spilled our blood, and we will rise again&amp;quot;...or a less threatening interpretation- &amp;quot;You may have spilled our blood and destroyed our land, but you have not broken our spirit&amp;quot;. Either way the viewer is left with the image that the South is triumphant. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I must say I was curious about whether the slaves in this movie were actually played by African Americans and from what I read they were. This surprised me because some of the slaves have pretty big roles and at this time African Americans were still very much segregated against. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jackie, way to go standing up for what you believe in!  But... why were you watching this movie in 2nd grade...? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet&amp;#039;s dismay.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember this is fiction it was not meant to be looked at critically. Do we judge other works of fiction with the same characteristics?  -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, we ought to judge anything and everything critically. Secondly, we ought to judge any movie that has had as profound an impact on the understanding of our history as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; has. Entire generations think that this is what the South was like. Heritage is one of the most important characteristics of a Southerner, this movie is such a part of Americana that not only has the film shaped Southerners&amp;#039; understandings of their heritage, the film itself has become part of their heritage. -Jason Ward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the House maid of Scarlet really be able to talk to her the way that she does? I feel like there would be some consiquences for talking back and being pretty sassy.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a lot of war movies, before the war breaks out, the would- be participants are giddy about going to war. I can see how the convictions of most Southerners gave them the resolve to fight, but were they itching to fight? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was John Wilkes a Character&amp;#039;s name in this film? It is an overt reference to John Wilkes Booth, was this not taboo in the 1930s? Lincoln has become an American God, and if a movie had a character by the name of John Wilkes today he would most assuredly be a villain, but not in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. What has been the historiography of John Wilkes Booth? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Clark Gable would have made a great Tom Dewey. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the film, while fairly historically accurate, is heavily viewed through the lens of the fall of southern aristocracy. It is about the struggles of the rich southerner more so than the south in its entirety. This film and book were probably a form of escapism for people during the Great Depression. What better way to forget your woes than to see the romanticized south with a beautiful, feisty leading lady and a dashing, swoon-worthy leading man?--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:28, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is beautifully shot and really has stood the test of time in that regard. However, watching Scarlett be annoying and conniving and bratty in nearly every way for most of the film really takes away from it. I think that she could be made into a &amp;quot;Gossip Girl&amp;quot; character and fit in just fine. The movie is still great and beautiful, but I definitely don&amp;#039;t have the patience for a delicate, pampered southern belle. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda I really couldn&amp;#039;t stand Scarlett either. I found her character really unbelievable even for a &amp;quot;Southern belle&amp;quot; and I had a hard time believing the other characters interactions with her. It all just seemed really fake. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the little bit of history in this movie is fairly accurate. I find it a hard movie to critic because there is so little in the storyline that comes from history. This movie was clearly meant to be entertaining. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If nap time was a part of gatherings in polite society (BBQ at Twelve Oaks), I&amp;#039;ll go to war to bring that back. - JT&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Too bad the men weren&amp;#039;t the ones napping, JT. - Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know Scarlett O&amp;#039;Hara is a polarizing character, but wow! My own feelings about her are somewhat conflicted, but I have to stand up for her. While she certainly fits the stereotype of the flirtatious, moonlight and magnolia Southern belle in the opening scenes of the film, she quickly develops into a hardworking, dynamic woman willing to do whatever it takes to protect her home. Scarlett is conniving, but she is also a successful businesswoman in a time when women of her social group were expected to raise (to a certain extent) children and join sewing societies (as Melanie and others do in the novel). Rhett Butler is just as amoral. Ashley Wilkes is a pathetic remnant of a past that never really existed. Melanie Wilkes, while kind and moral, is a flat character whose main purpose is to serve as Scarlett&amp;#039;s foil, making her (Scarlett&amp;#039;s) actions seem less harsh. Scarlett is subject to the censure of her own society (and to some extent our own) because she doesn&amp;#039;t conform to the proper female ideal.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was really struck by how little of the movie covered the antebellum South.  I saw the movie once in my childhood and all I remembered, and all anyone talks about, is the beginning of the movie that focuses on “the old South.”  For a nearly four-hour movie, that part makes up so little. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ve seen &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; plenty of times (what self-respecting classic film fan hasn’t?), but only when the mood struck me. I thought it was going to be a chore to see it this weekend because I didn’t think I was in the mood to watch it. When I finally forced myself to sit down for a viewing, it took me about one minute to get sucked in. Apparently, I’m always in the mood for &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. It truly is a classic. And for good reason! Just think, how many famous quotes come from this movie alone? Scarlett pumping her fist into the air, clearly on a soundstage with fake scenery, shouting, “Even if I have to lie, steal, cheat, or kill. As God is my witness, I’ll never be hungry again!” By all rights that scene (and many others in the movie) should be completely, utterly cheesy, but it’s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;not&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. What a movie! Still, nothing can convince me to watch the sequel with Timothy Dalton. Just no. As a little aside, if I recall correctly had Margaret Mitchell decided to be in the movie, she would’ve picked Prissy to play! --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There&amp;#039;s a sequel?  What is it called? - Whitney H.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-02T06:00:53Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jackie said, there were a lot of things that the movie did get right, such as one scene where Rhett tells Scarlett that she has to date him because &amp;quot;there is no one else around older than 16 and younger than 60 to show [her] a good time.&amp;quot;  As we discussed in class, most of the men in the South during the Civil War between those ages were off fighting, and many of them died, posing a problem for the women back at home.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job at portraying history to many degrees.  Certain scenes really put the viewer into historical perspective, such as the scene that shows the Yankees offering currently freed blacks 40 acres and a mule.  The scene in which Ashley explains to Scarlett that using forced prison labor was less ethical than using “darkies” because any forced labor was a moral wrong goes to show that white slave owners who held slaves may have saw themselves as not practicing any form of forced labor.  Even Ashley states that there was a major difference between the treatment of chained prisoners and his slaves, as he boasts he treated his slaves much better.  James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Rhett Butler&amp;#039;s first lines in this film is him explaining how the North was better equipped than the South, a reason why they shouldn&amp;#039;t have gone into war in the first place.  He states that while the North was armed with factories, superior weapons, and coal mines, all the South had were &amp;quot;slaves, cotton, and arrogance.&amp;quot;  This is a nice summary of the South&amp;#039;s economic dependence on the production of cotton, which is of course directly dependent on slave labor.  Furthermore, the &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; can be interpreted as their belief in white supremacy and how that may have driven the South to go to war (which the movie eventually proved to be destructive to them). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depiction of the civil war &amp;quot;hospitals&amp;quot; to be at least mildly accurate. They gave no sense of cleanliness or sterility, and were at times gruesome as Scarlett couldn&amp;#039;t handle bearing witness to the amputation sans chloroform. Perhaps there were some instances of nurse touching in the movie which was not allowed in real life, but it did portray one lady writing a letter for an incapacitated man as mentioned in the lecture. Also there was some sense that disease played just as important a role in the death toll as the war wounds. Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband falls to pneumonia, her mother to typhoid, and there were allusions to lice and other diseases in the &amp;quot;hospitals.&amp;quot; -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Post-traumatic stress/depression displayed by the returning Confederate soldiers was at least shown in the movie, though not named. Ashley came back and he was not happy with the destroyed life he came back to. He lost his sense of being a man.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a great job with portraying the notion of the romanticized southern history and lifestyle. The nation is on the brink of civil war yet in the movie they are having a grand ole time at the bbq and various balls. As the men are discussing the war, they believe it is more important to be gentlemen who know how to use their words as oppose to discussing potential strategies. Rhett Butler is ostracized for explaining that the North has a better chance of winning the war because they have factories, ship yards, coal mines and other necessary supplies. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe the southern gender roles are accurately portrayed, most especially in the beginning/first half of the movie. Concerning the elite class, the women are dainty, southern belles who wear big dresses and flaunt fancy, elaborate hats. Marriage was intended for money and land, which is explained when Mr. O&amp;#039;Hara explains to  Scarlett that it doesn&amp;#039;t matter who you marry just as long as he&amp;#039;s southern and thinks the same way. While the women are upstairs napping, the men are downstairs smoking, drinking and talking man business such as war. The movie is pretty stereotypical of what people believed and how they acted at the time. The movie shows how the South was convinced that it would be victorious because the soldiers were defending slavery, cotton, and southern land. The movie truly turned the North into the villain, which was a prevailing belief in the South. The South was not a fan base for Abraham Lincoln. In her journal, Ella explains her despise for Lincoln and in the movie Scarlett tells Rhett at the fundraiser that on that night she would have even danced with Abraham Lincoln.  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It really does portray the romanticized version of the south, most people take a good part of this movie to explain what they know about southern history. The movie did a good job portraying the different challenges women faced when the war started.  They were thrown into new and different roles on top of having to do the different tasks they had to before the war. Mallory at that point in the movie when Scarlett tells Rhett that she would have danced with Lincoln she still hates Rhett he is just a way for her to have fun and enjoy herself. She is so miserable not being able to have fun since she is a widow that she will take any opportunity to have a good time. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the scene at the hospital although not completely accurate does do a very good job at depicting how gruesome a Civil War hospital was. Many people got horrible injuries many people had to have limbs amputated. The movie also does a great job showing depression and trauma in people after the events of the war especially in men. Mr. Wilks and Scarlett&amp;#039;s father are both prominent examples of depression in the movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the reconstruction part of the film Ashley says, &amp;quot;There is no place for me.&amp;quot; - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Coming home from the war the men seem emasculated. They are no longer able to care for their dependents and they have lost a war that has left the South devastated. This can be seen in Ashley and Scarlett&amp;#039;s father. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:00, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just out of curiosity, I know Rhett was against the war (for most of it) but was still a Captain.  How many men had the same luxuries Rhett did and how many really shared his opinion?  It seemed to me that most of the men were excited to go off and join the war (just think of that scene at Twelve Oaks) but Rhett was against the idea behind it and never &amp;#039;&amp;#039;had&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to go fight.  Why not?  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, although Scarlet was rather independent for a woman of her time, you still saw the sense of &amp;quot;submissiveness&amp;quot; I guess you could say, that women had towards men.  At one point, Rhett looks at Scarlet and says &amp;quot;now blow your nose like a good little girl&amp;quot; and she did as she was told.  Women may have had more power than they would have liked, and in some cases enjoyed it like Scarlet, but there was still that sense of dominance that men had over women.  Even after Ashley came back and was completely distraught from the war one of Scarlet&amp;#039;s first instincts was &amp;quot;Ashley will know what to do.&amp;quot;  The men were still thought to have had all the answers.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the characters do a fair job in symbolizing the bigger ideas of gender roles during the Civil War and Reconstruction period. Scarlett and Melly take over their households, raise money for the war, and work as nurses. Scarlett, especially, has to handle all the aspects of caring for her family, friends, and Tara. At the war’s end Melly is perfectly content to go back to being subservient to men, like most women. Scarlett, however, is in the minority who didn’t go back to their normal roles. Though she does remarry, she clearly doesn’t give Mr. Kennedy any control over her, and she pretty much takes over his business and starts up another in lumbering. Despite all that, the movie suggests that even someone as strong as Scarlett wants to be dominated by a man (to a certain degree). She was awfully happy the morning after Rhett threatened to kill her and forcefully carried her up those stairs, after all. For the men, Ashley comes back from the war having to rely on Scarlett and unable to provide for the people he cares about, causing him to feel useless and emasculated. He’s also depressed (at least his words suggest this, though he acts depressed the whole damn movie) at the loss of the Old South he once knew. Mr. Kennedy, as mentioned above, is dominated by Scarlett. Even Mr. O’Hara is rendered ineffective by the war. I think Rhett is the only man to remain “manly” the entire time, but he ain’t no gentleman. In fact, I would say that Rhett and Scarlett also provide a contrast to the Old South image of ladylike and gentlemanly conduct. As Rhett says, “Bad lots, both of us. Selfish and shrewd.” Perhaps it’s appropriate in a movie that depicts the downfall of the Old South for the leads to be cads, but it’s still interesting as the film also glorifies that moonlight and magnolias Southern comfort way of life. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that&amp;#039;s maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It&amp;#039;s been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that &amp;quot;illegal raid&amp;quot; was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- I also noticed the lack of mention about the KKK and after doing some research found this on IMDB, (so veracity may or may not be accurate): Producer David O. Selznick said that he had no desire to remake The Birth of a Nation (1915), telling screenwriter Sidney Howard in 1937, &amp;quot;I do hope you will agree with me on this omission of what might come out as an unintentional advertisement for intolerant societies in these fascist-ridden times...&amp;quot; So maybe this is more telling of the time in which it was made more than anything.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:20, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be nit-picky, but the scenes where Scarlett and Melanie are working as nurses for the wounded soldiers, they are bandaging the soldiers and taking their temperatures.  As we discussed in class, female nurses at this time would not be doing things like that; it would have been considered inappropriate, and they would have been doing tasks such as writing letters home for soldiers.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to women’s roles, it is apparent that Scarlet takes full advantage of the men being away. She keeps her role even when they return, managing the farm, the mill, the store, and her countless husbands. This example is of a truly one of a kind woman, and I don’t think (from my knowledge on gender roles etc.) that many women welcomed that much more responsibility, or were bold enough to take it into their own hands. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to mention Sherman’s march – sure Sherman wasn’t the nicest, but the Yankees are so villain-ized that it proves how much hatred there really was between the confederates and Yankees. Even from what is considered a southern state, Virginia, I was never taught such a one sided account. One thing that was overlooked that we discussed in class was the Confederates’ path of destruction as well – they tried to eliminate food sources that the Yankees could later stumble upon. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie&amp;#039;s romanticizing of the antebellum South, it appeared to me that the movie completely glossed over whites who were not in the planter class elite. There were no representations of the poor whites, or really any whites who owned less than a score of slaves who were not city dwellers. Also, though there was a mention of some of the O&amp;#039;Hara slaves running off, many slaves chose to remain very loyal to the family despite the South&amp;#039;s tenuous hold on slavery. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Melanie supposed to be absolutely ignorant that Scarlett loves Ashley?  She and Scarlett were very close since Charles died and Scarlett moved in with her and her aunt, but part of Scarlett&amp;#039;s friendship is just a facade, because she promised her love that she&amp;#039;d look after Melanie.  You&amp;#039;d think that it wouldn&amp;#039;t take 8 or so years for someone to see Scarlett in Ashley&amp;#039;s arms and pick up on something. - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whitney, Melanie is not ignorant to that fact that Scarlett love Ashley but she is such a good person that she doesn&amp;#039;t want to believe in bad things.  Melanie chooses to ignore that fact. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the deal with Scarlett&amp;#039;s cleavage?  Every other woman is dressed modestly except for Belle (no coincidence).  Once Scarlett returns to Tara and her father, she takes to wearing her pink dress WAY unbuttoned, and after that it seems like the only time you don&amp;#039;t see bare chest is when she&amp;#039;s in mourning!  But when she gets money and all these nice new clothes she does buy some dresses that cover her up more.  This all seems quite scandalous to be in a movie in 1939.  Someone mentioned &amp;quot;Aviator&amp;quot;--do you remember the cleavage discussion that went on with the board of censors? Yeah.  How easy was it to get that much on screen for GWTW? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as censor issues go for this movie, I mostly think language and content was the issue--not cleavage. When comparing the chest size of Hughe&amp;#039;s muse Jane Russell and Vivien Leigh it doesn&amp;#039;t seem to be as big a deal you know? They weren&amp;#039;t pushing the envelope much more than anyone else was back then. And plus, this was a BIG budget movie that was highly publicized and popular before filming even began so censors would not have even had much power over it. Alos keep in mind, they were probably sending things to the Prod. Code Office for approval throughout production. The two censor issues I know of were the lines &amp;quot;I don&amp;#039;t give a damn&amp;quot; (got away with it cuz the emphasis was on &amp;quot;give&amp;quot; and not &amp;quot;damn&amp;quot;  and the line &amp;quot;maybe you&amp;#039;ll get luck and have an miscarriage&amp;quot; which had to be changed to &amp;quot;have an accident.&amp;quot;--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken mentioned in his lecture that men who returned home after the war stepped back into their patriarchal roles, but Ashley acted so feminine, like he lost all hope of regaining his masculinity. It seemed to me that his wife tried her best to keep both of their spirits afloat as they did their best to survive. Does anyone else think that or do people disagree? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this movie first came out it was pretty much given a rated of X which then was similar to our now a days R.  I have grown up watching this with my grandmother and I remember her telling me that when it first came out she was forbidden to go see it by her parents.  She would have been around 15 at that time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way slaves and the union were portrayed in this movie was a big problem for accuracy. Even after the war the slaves have not left Scarlett and they are still submissive to her and working for her which is just not accurate at all. The key black characters in the movie are shown as completely devoted to Scarlett even after she treats them like crap and the war is over. The movie is entirely biased in that the union perspective is never shown and in the small scenes it does show union characters these scenes all portray negative stereotypes. When a movie is so clearly biased it loses a lot of historical credibility. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Darkies&amp;quot; seems like more of a &amp;#039;30s thing to me. Was it? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where was Sharecropping in the film? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Margaret Mitchell&amp;#039;s biggest issues with the film had to do with how the filmmakers portrayed the actual plantation houses.  Although Tara and Twelve Oaks were plantations, Mitchell felt that the filmmakers made them far too luxurious.  She intended both estates to be significantly more modest.  Of course, audiences would respond much better to the overblown Greek Revival mansions with double staircases and interiors that rival Napoleon III&amp;#039;s apartments at the Louvre.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aside from the idealization of the Old South, I think one of the biggest inaccuracies in the movie is the issue of slavery. The slaves at Tara and Twelve Oaks aren’t mistreated. Mr. O’Hara even scolds Scarlett for pushing them so hard. Of course, Mammy, Prissy, and Pork don’t run away during or after the war. Big Sam even goes back to Tara because he’s “had enough of those carpetbaggers.” And the O’Hara slaves think of themselves as miles above all that poor white trash riffraff, and they’re also willing to blatantly backtalk and boss around their masters. The worst threat of bodily harm is when Scarlett yells that she’ll whip Prissy for being completely unhelpful when Melly is in labor, but we know she won’t do it. If such a family was that kind toward their slaves, they probably would have been the pariahs of the South. To add on to those inaccuracies, there’s the fact that every black person in the movie is a stereotype: the overbearing mammy, the large gentle giant, the ignorant ninny, and so on. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Lauren on the issue with Ashley’s return to home. He did not step up to his masculinity roles and in a way depended on Scarlett to help him. Scarlett was running the household and keeping people’s hopes up. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An issue I felt was inaccurate was the scene where the African American nanny received a red dress from the captain as a gift. Would Southerners actually do this for their servants? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The house slaves all seemed to be treated a lot nicer than I had expected. They were still slaves, yeah? As for Whitney&amp;#039;s point about Scarlett&amp;#039;s cleavage, let&amp;#039;s think of who the big (no pun intended) actresses were of the time. Mae West and Rita Hayworth. Sex sold back then just as it does now. As Jewel said, &amp;quot;follow me, the blonde bombshell diety, I&amp;#039;ll sell you neat ideas without big words and a little bit of cleavage to wash it all down.&amp;quot; --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And yes. I just quoted Jewel. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
George Fitzhugh’s “The Blessings of Slavery” shows how ignorant white southern slave owners can be. The idea that a person is more happy in forced servitude than as a free citizen is ridiculous. Beyond that, it  meshes with stories of other slaveholders that were surprised when their slaves ran away – treating slaves well is better than treating them terribly, but they are still slaves. Gone with the Wind falls into this ignorance. Like most film productions where southern whites are slaveholders, the slaves love their masters like family. Mammy, Sissy, etc. (I can’t help but flashback to the Patriot as Mel helps his free black friends plow the field). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes the portrayal of slaves is extremely absurd in this movie in relation to actual scholarship and history. From the readings it is clear that after the war the slaves were freed and left the plantations. The slaves would not come back to the same families they were enslaved by before and when they did show up again their former owners wanted them gone. The movie takes the ideas of patternalism seriously even though it was just a delusion of Southern Whites. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the primary sources we read dealt with both Whites and Blacks dealing with the after math of Emancipation. Whites unsure of what to do with the free labor society thrust upon them and Blacks surprising Whites by packing their grip and leaving. Gone with the Wind barely even mentions it as if they didn&amp;#039;t even notice that this monumental change had taken place. It was definitely a White-centric view of the fall of aristocratic South.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:04, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Schurz&amp;#039;s text, he discusses the fact that a very small minority of people were able to continue having regular lives and move forward after the war. Scarlett and Rhett seem to represent special cases of people, and can&amp;#039;t be applied to the rest of the reconstructing south. As to the KKK article, we could give the movie credit for not coming out and saying that the men went to kill the African-Americans, but simply all of the men at the outskirt camp, since the article does discuss the murder of white men and women who were friendly to the abolition cause. The movie does fail in showing abolitionist characters and instead gives us disgustingly sympathetic-to-their-husbands-crimes wives and violent men. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
So apparently the Civil War only affected white people....  Mammy and Prissy and the other old slave man all stay with Miss Scarlet and her family throughout the whole movie.  Not once is there mention of slaves being emancipated, and not once do the slaves mention being free (although we do see Old Sam is living away from them now, since he became a trench digger).  Through all that post-war poverty, and being the only blacks left on Tara, they stayed loyal.  But of course!  They&amp;#039;d always been treated and fed well and loved their white family and would never think of anything but staying. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The addressing of racial issues in Gone With The Wind was equally infuriating and heartbreaking. The thought that kept rushing through my head during the scenes with Mammy, Pris and Pork was it&amp;#039;s similarity to 1915&amp;#039;s Birth Of A Nation, which cost $110,000 to make and grossed $3 million in the US and $10 million worldwide. Gone With The Wind, to date, has grossed nearly $200 million dollars, after taking just under $4 million to produce. While BOAN was released 24 years previous to GWTW, it is clear that this racism is still prevalent and, as the above numbers show, commercially viable. In both films, the black characters were satirical caricatures of the southern slave population and were often seen not only as members of an inferior race but sometimes even as nothing more than loyal dogs. Human Beings or Man&amp;#039;s Best Friend? Unfortunately, this was clearly the southern attitude towards the black population. I suppose this racism is a great history lesson for those curious about race relations during the antebellum, in-war and post-war years, but it makes both films vastly uncomfortable viewing. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found interesting is that none of the slave characters ever talked about their own families (if they had them) or relatives or even other slaves. Is this a matter of people in this period not wanting to hear about real slavery (people who worked outside of the house), or was it just a lack of caring? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was watching TCM a few weeks ago and they did a 15 minute feature on Hattie McDaniel, the actress who played Mamie. Before and after &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; McDaniel was type cast into motherly, domestic roles hundreds of times. McDaniel was respected in Hollywood (for what it was/is worth) and won an academy award for best supporting actress for her role as Mamie. Her roles as a domestic caretaker often caricatured blacks by being boisterous and plainspoken. Those portrayals helped make black characters appear lovable and benign, while simultaneously implying that they were subservient and not to be taken seriously. McDaniel and other black actresses were criticized for taking roles which allegedly validated or at least perpetuated the servile status of blacks. McDaniel said “I’d rather play a maid for $700 a week than be one for $7”. I think this movie is as strong a primary source as it is a secondary source, for it reveals the complexity of race relations in this country in the late 1930s. On one hand, blacks had acting jobs, so that is progress from the era of blackface. On the other hand, those acting roles depicted blacks as servants with no desire to advance. McDaniel’s own comment conveys a certain contentment with being a stock character, which sent the message that she was content with being a second class citizen. What did it say to blacks at the time that one of their most beloved actresses was not willing to rock the boat? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
-Definitely have to agree with Jason here. I was thinking about the movie Hollywood Shuffle (1987) and it deals with the tension   between Blacks actors either playing a stereotyped Black role or making no money at all. It is a sign on what time this film was created in that most actors had no choice and their wasn&amp;#039;t really much room for being morally virtouos in choosing roles.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:13, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t take this movie as a primary source at all. No one apparrently ever does work in the south. Every slave is apparintly seen as a &amp;quot;sambo&amp;quot; never tired, never worrying about punishment. They have absolutly no quarrels with being slaves at any point and seem to love their masters. The things I did notice to be kinda right were the southern mens attitude toward war. GWTW depicts the importance of military school to southern men. but none of the men seem to even go to school and life always comes off as a party down in the south. The problem with the movie is that  its writen with a romatic (Art form not love) veiw on life. This does depicts the movie from the eyes of a sotherner. --Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jason that this movie is probably one of the best for use as a primary source that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far in class. This is most evident in the scenes involving the slaves. Though as previously mentioned the characters are no longer blackface clad white actors, they are still playing the same character types as before. The men are all dim-witted and lazy. Particularly striking were the scenes of the one male slave chasing the rooster around in the mud as he mumbles to himself and the &amp;quot;quitting time&amp;quot; scene near the beginning of the film. I assume these were meant to be humorous scenes, of course at the expense of the slaves. Then there is Prissy and Mammy. Though both are female, neither character is portrayed in any way which may allude to an attractiveness, nor any other discernible feminine qualities. This was especially evident when the black actresses shared screen time with any of the white actresses. Prissy was relentlessly childlike and helpless, accented by her squeaky voice and cowardly demeanor.  Mammy was the sassy, though obedient, servant with no concerns of her own. Essentially this movie is a time capsule to prevailing racist views in 1939.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayals of the black slaves [later servants] was incredibly painful to watch at times.  The idea of a content &amp;quot;sambo&amp;quot; character typical of those working around Tara is clearly accurate to what we have discussed white slave owners having convinced themselves to be typical, but equally distant from reality.  We know that slave owners were thus genuinely surprised when freed slaves up and left their plantations, since they couldn&amp;#039;t believe their slaves had not been content working for them.  The primary source implication of this is that readers and viewers of Gone With The Wind could use this material to RE-convince themselves of that absurd idea.  The film may therefore contribute to whites of the late 30s and 40s having a misunderstanding of the discontentment leading up to the Civil Rights Movement. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of going with JT&amp;#039;s comment, and I may be completely off base here, but to me it seemed as if the filmmakers were making a mockery of the slaves in the movie.  I mean, poor Pork seemed to have been an idiot during most of the movie and I honestly wanted to slap Prissy&amp;#039;s character.  I feel as if that was completely unfair and I think it shows a sort of influence of &amp;#039;30s attitudes towards blacks.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Whitney on finding it weird that the slaves were loyal to the family.  The younger girl Prissy though did show some signs of being equal with Scarlette when Scarlette sent Prissy to fetch the doctor; she made a face behind Scarlette’s back. Did most slaves actually flee the South when the Union troops invaded? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The book was a bestseller, the movie was an instant classic, but Why?  Nostalgia. Americans love the way things used to be even if they never were that way. The only positive representation we got of the South was before the war, and the only representation of the antebellum South was the wealthiest 0.2% of it. The middle 90% of the movie depicted a South that had spiraled into decay, poverty, and criminality at the hands of Yankee invaders and carpetbaggers. The end of the movie brings us full circle as Scarlett says “Tara, I’ll go home and think of someway to get him [Rhett] back, after all, tomorrow is another day!”. To me, Rhett is obviously a metaphor for the antebellum South (of course, he was too benevolent and objective to represent the old South truthfully, but nonetheless that was the intent of his character).  What this closing line insinuates is that the way to fix all of these problems caused by the damn Yankees is to just go back to the way things were. The public sees this film and says “Oh wow, before the Civil War the South was fun and pretty and awesome, even the slaves decided when it was quittin’ time! But how depressing was the rest of the movie, too much heartbreak! Scarlett is going back to Tara, can we come?!?!?!”. The problem was “Tara” only existed to a few hundred thousand people, and actually didn’t even exist like the movie would have us believe. There are MANY other examples throughout the film that regard the South sympathetically…- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How this movie enables the public to sympathize with the South:&lt;br /&gt;
* The raid on the carpetbagger settlement, and the subsequent duping of the Yankee officers. By doing this the film maker’s show the Southerner’s as patriots defending their homeland, while also fooling the dumb Northerners. &lt;br /&gt;
* The film gives the South a complete pass on slavery. Yes, slavery was depicted in the film for 30 seconds, but shows NO cruelty towards blacks. Even in the integrated street scene during the reconstruction segment of the film there was no hostility/ resentment towards blacks. &lt;br /&gt;
* The movie perpetuates the warped belief of paternalism buy having all the blacks who had worked on Tara before the war, stay with the O’ Hara’s throughout the film. Big Sam even came to Scarlett’s rescue. Former slaves would not have done any of this. &lt;br /&gt;
* Mamie seems to be well respected by the family, and interacts with them on equal footing. Furthermore, Rhett gives Mamie a red dress. This tells the audience that domestic slaves were treated well, even lavishly. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Civil War was portrayed as The War of Northern Aggression. This helps the audience see the evils done by the Union Army, while the South plays the role of victim. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rhett is the consummate distinguished Southern gentleman without a bad bone in his body. He was pragmatic and diplomatic in is speeches towards the North. Rhett was so moralistic and level- headed that any cause or ideology could be justified and defended by such an upstanding character. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adjusted for inflation, this film would out-gross Titanic by a long shot.  This film has had an impact, subtle or not, on every film made about the South since its release.  While the South is heavily romanticized, we (the public with a Northern slant) still look down on it as we do with every other culture we romanticize.  In his landmark book Orientalism, Edward Said argued that by romanticizing &amp;quot;Oriental&amp;quot; (Middle Eastern and Asian) culture, Western nations justified their imperial and colonial initiatives.  Gone With the Wind may appear to be a pro-Southern film, but it is actually a manifestation that very justification.  Outside of the former Confederacy (I&amp;#039;m leaving my arguments about Virginia as still being part of the South at the door), audiences viewed and continue to view this film with a Northern influence.  The perpetuation of this romantic stereotype serves to justify the North&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;conquering&amp;quot; of the South.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This doesn’t 100 percent fit in this section but it is relevant.   The actress who played Mammy, Hattie McDaniel, was forced to sit in a segregated section at the Oscars when she won the award for best supporting actress.  This corroborates the racism that is so present in the film and supports our use of it as a primary source about it’s time. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; is beautifully filmed and edited.  The use of color, music and other forms of mise en scene are spectacular, which a whole other class period could be devoted to for discussion.  One of  the scenes that stood out to me was when one of the soldiers comes back from battle and exclaims &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s over, the war is over, we surrendered!&amp;quot;  Immediately after this, the spectrum of reactions from the south is expressed in only a matter of seconds through a couple of lines (these lines are of course paraphrased to the best of my memory):  &amp;quot;Why did we ever go to war?&amp;quot; (feeling of reluctance and regret), &amp;quot;Oh (insert name of husband) is coming home!&amp;quot; (relief that a loved one made it alive), &amp;quot;We surrendered?!?!&amp;quot; (shock of losing the war). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say - the first half.... LONG and BORING. The second half - on the edge of my seat at times. I had to leave for a club meeting (for literally 5 minutes) and it was hard to pry myself away. I must say NOT what I expected. Also, I totally called the deaths of Bonnie (foreshadowing) and Melanie (classic Little Women-like Beth character). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing - symbolism... I felt that Scarlet&amp;#039;s love for Ashley (which tragically ended at the end at his wife&amp;#039;s death, when Scarlet finally really gets a clue and realizes Ashley has loved his wife all along) was symbolic for the death of the south. Not a very uplifting ending. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very nice insights, Elle.  I was just wondering the likelihood of someone like Scarlett&amp;#039;s character truly existing during the Civil War.  Her extremely demanding personality gave me no choice but to stereotype all white women in the south during that time; but, I still feel that nobody that hysterical could really be based off a real person(s).  I know a lot of it probably has to do with dramatic effect, but generalizing off of Elle&amp;#039;s interpretation of Scarlett&amp;#039;s love for Ashley symbolizing the death of the south, is Scarlett&amp;#039;s personality representative of the arrogance of the South and how that lead to severe psychological repercussions?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a demeaning image of a southern white lady, and how awful to have to play that role and reinforce this stereotype!  Scarlett is purely selfish, immature, whiny, vain, stubborn, hysterical, greedy...the list goes on.  Uggh!  And how she is in the beginning turning from one guy to another, entirely insincere and loving attention.  She marries to help herself and spite other men, and it takes until the loving, perfect Melanie dies for her to realize that Ashley was right when he said that he loved his wife and not her, and to realize that Rhett also loved her, like he always said he did.  And I don&amp;#039;t even need to go into her spending habits.  Frankly, I couldn&amp;#039;t give a damn what she did without Rhett, either.  To sum it up, as Elle said, &amp;quot;God, she&amp;#039;s pathetic.&amp;quot; -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is Rhett supposed to have become and stayed a millionaire? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Whitney, the effects of witnessing Scarlett going through her cluttered romantic thoughts and her various cases of whiny rants was at some points mind numbing, but at least she was determined to succeed. James D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I beg to differ on several of the above comments. First off, I LOVE AND WILL FOREVER LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!! The film is amazing in so many ways in its own right but the story Margaret Mitchell invented is beautiful. The characters are each tragically flawed in just the perfect way to make you love them, but mostly hate them and yet keeps you wanting to read it. I went as Scarlet in the red &amp;quot;look your part&amp;quot; dress in 2nd grade, so yeah, I am an undying fan. Scarlet is all of those horrible things but Rhett is a lot of them too. He just admits to them instead of trying to adhere to the hypocrisy of that society until Bonnie comes along. And the movie is ridiculously sad at the end, giving you zero time to breath in between Rhett&amp;#039;s devastation over Scarlet&amp;#039;s miscarriage (a word that they were not allowed to say in 1939 Code Hollywood), to Bonnie&amp;#039;s death and then Melanie&amp;#039;s death and then the final blow of Rhett leaving Scarlet at the precise moment she has her freakin&amp;#039; epiphany. But I love all these characters, even Scarlet- because Melanie (even though she deludes herself into thinking that Scarlet is not in love with Ashley) does see the good qualities of Scarlet, her sense of loyalty and the constant protection she provides to her family. It all seems selfish and she whines to some about having to do it, but in the end she goes back to Tara, the place that gives her strength because it is apart of her identity as the daughter of an Irish man, as a Southerner, as passionate person who demands control over her own life and destiny and will prevail &amp;quot;as God as her witness&amp;quot; even under all the tragedies of the world. It is actually an inspiring character, because she does change in the end (though you can debate that point) for the better. She gains a bit of insight and learns to love those she has taken for granted, and let go of others she had no right to love in the first place (got over her silly girlhood crush basically). I could quote this TIMELESS FILM all night long so I&amp;#039;ll stop before I do.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Rhett gets drunk and sweeps Scarlett off her feet to presumably have &amp;quot;marital relations&amp;quot; with her, when we see her the next morning in her bed, was she smiling because she received multiple orgasms or was she happy for some other reasons? Can it be assume that since Rhett likes to hang around harlots and &amp;quot;bad women&amp;quot; like Belle, that he knows how to be an impeccable lover?-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Hah Lauren, me and my roommate laughed at this scene, I came to the same conclusion you did. I hope Dr. M highlights this one, just for the sheer awkwardness of it all. -Shannon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, Mae West and Rita Hayworth. Just saying. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it really that common of a practice to take group naps in other people&amp;#039;s homes? In the movie it seemed like a common occurrence during parties. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck by the symbolism of the cut away shot at the end. Scarlett standing like the statue of liberty/ lady justice against a blood red sky while the voice over narration says, &amp;quot;After all, tomorrow is another day&amp;quot;. To me this is the South saying, &amp;quot;We stand here full of pride, having spilled our blood, and we will rise again&amp;quot;...or a less threatening interpretation- &amp;quot;You may have spilled our blood and destroyed our land, but you have not broken our spirit&amp;quot;. Either way the viewer is left with the image that the South is triumphant. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I must say I was curious about whether the slaves in this movie were actually played by African Americans and from what I read they were. This surprised me because some of the slaves have pretty big roles and at this time African Americans were still very much segregated against. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jackie, way to go standing up for what you believe in!  But... why were you watching this movie in 2nd grade...? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet&amp;#039;s dismay.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember this is fiction it was not meant to be looked at critically. Do we judge other works of fiction with the same characteristics?  -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, we ought to judge anything and everything critically. Secondly, we ought to judge any movie that has had as profound an impact on the understanding of our history as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; has. Entire generations think that this is what the South was like. Heritage is one of the most important characteristics of a Southerner, this movie is such a part of Americana that not only has the film shaped Southerners&amp;#039; understandings of their heritage, the film itself has become part of their heritage. -Jason Ward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the House maid of Scarlet really be able to talk to her the way that she does? I feel like there would be some consiquences for talking back and being pretty sassy.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a lot of war movies, before the war breaks out, the would- be participants are giddy about going to war. I can see how the convictions of most Southerners gave them the resolve to fight, but were they itching to fight? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was John Wilkes a Character&amp;#039;s name in this film? It is an overt reference to John Wilkes Booth, was this not taboo in the 1930s? Lincoln has become an American God, and if a movie had a character by the name of John Wilkes today he would most assuredly be a villain, but not in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. What has been the historiography of John Wilkes Booth? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Clark Gable would have made a great Tom Dewey. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the film, while fairly historically accurate, is heavily viewed through the lens of the fall of southern aristocracy. It is about the struggles of the rich southerner more so than the south in its entirety. This film and book were probably a form of escapism for people during the Great Depression. What better way to forget your woes than to see the romanticized south with a beautiful, feisty leading lady and a dashing, swoon-worthy leading man?--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:28, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is beautifully shot and really has stood the test of time in that regard. However, watching Scarlett be annoying and conniving and bratty in nearly every way for most of the film really takes away from it. I think that she could be made into a &amp;quot;Gossip Girl&amp;quot; character and fit in just fine. The movie is still great and beautiful, but I definitely don&amp;#039;t have the patience for a delicate, pampered southern belle. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda I really couldn&amp;#039;t stand Scarlett either. I found her character really unbelievable even for a &amp;quot;Southern belle&amp;quot; and I had a hard time believing the other characters interactions with her. It all just seemed really fake. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the little bit of history in this movie is fairly accurate. I find it a hard movie to critic because there is so little in the storyline that comes from history. This movie was clearly meant to be entertaining. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If nap time was a part of gatherings in polite society (BBQ at Twelve Oaks), I&amp;#039;ll go to war to bring that back. - JT&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Too bad the men weren&amp;#039;t the ones napping, JT. - Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know Scarlett O&amp;#039;Hara is a polarizing character, but wow! My own feelings about her are somewhat conflicted, but I have to stand up for her. While she certainly fits the stereotype of the flirtatious, moonlight and magnolia Southern belle in the opening scenes of the film, she quickly develops into a hardworking, dynamic woman willing to do whatever it takes to protect her home. Scarlett is conniving, but she is also a successful businesswoman in a time when women of her social group were expected to raise (to a certain extent) children and join sewing societies (as Melanie and others do in the novel). Rhett Butler is just as amoral. Ashley Wilkes is a pathetic remnant of a past that never really existed. Melanie Wilkes, while kind and moral, is a flat character whose main purpose is to serve as Scarlett&amp;#039;s foil, making her (Scarlett&amp;#039;s) actions seem less harsh. Scarlett is subject to the censure of her own society (and to some extent our own) because she doesn&amp;#039;t conform to the proper female ideal.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was really struck by how little of the movie covered the antebellum South.  I saw the movie once in my childhood and all I remembered, and all anyone talks about, is the beginning of the movie that focuses on “the old South.”  For a nearly four-hour movie, that part makes up so little. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ve seen &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; plenty of times (what self-respecting classic film fan hasn’t?), but only when the mood struck me. I thought it was going to be a chore to see it this weekend because I didn’t think I was in the mood to watch it. When I finally forced myself to sit down for a viewing, it took me about one minute to get sucked in. Apparently, I’m always in the mood for &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. It truly is a classic. And for good reason! Just think, how many famous quotes come from this movie alone? Scarlett pumping her fist into the air, clearly on a soundstage with fake scenery, shouting, “Even if I have to lie, steal, cheat, or kill. As God is my witness, I’ll never be hungry again!” By all rights that scene (and many others in the movie) should be completely, utterly cheesy, but it’s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;not&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. What a movie! Still, nothing can convince me to watch the sequel with Timothy Dalton. Just no. As a little aside, if I recall correctly had Margaret Mitchell decided to be in the movie, she would’ve picked Prissy to play! --Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-01T05:45:36Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jackie said, there were a lot of things that the movie did get right, such as one scene where Rhett tells Scarlett that she has to date him because &amp;quot;there is no one else around older than 16 and younger than 60 to show [her] a good time.&amp;quot;  As we discussed in class, most of the men in the South during the Civil War between those ages were off fighting, and many of them died, posing a problem for the women back at home.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Rhett Butler&amp;#039;s first lines in this film is him explaining how the North was better equipped than the South, a reason why they shouldn&amp;#039;t have gone into war in the first place.  He states that while the North was armed with factories, superior weapons, and coal mines, all the South had were &amp;quot;slaves, cotton, and arrogance.&amp;quot;  This is a nice summary of the South&amp;#039;s economic dependence on the production of cotton, which is of course directly dependent on slave labor.  Furthermore, the &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; can be interpreted as their belief in white supremacy and how that may have driven the South to go to war (which the movie eventually proved to be destructive to them). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depiction of the civil war &amp;quot;hospitals&amp;quot; to be at least mildly accurate. They gave no sense of cleanliness or sterility, and were at times gruesome as Scarlett couldn&amp;#039;t handle bearing witness to the amputation sans chloroform. Perhaps there were some instances of nurse touching in the movie which was not allowed in real life, but it did portray one lady writing a letter for an incapacitated man as mentioned in the lecture. Also there was some sense that disease played just as important a role in the death toll as the war wounds. Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband falls to pneumonia, her mother to typhoid, and there were allusions to lice and other diseases in the &amp;quot;hospitals.&amp;quot; -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that&amp;#039;s maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It&amp;#039;s been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that &amp;quot;illegal raid&amp;quot; was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be nit-picky, but the scenes where Scarlett and Melanie are working as nurses for the wounded soldiers, they are bandaging the soldiers and taking their temperatures.  As we discussed in class, female nurses at this time would not be doing things like that; it would have been considered inappropriate, and they would have been doing tasks such as writing letters home for soldiers.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to women’s roles, it is apparent that Scarlet takes full advantage of the men being away. She keeps her role even when they return, managing the farm, the mill, the store, and her countless husbands. This example is of a truly one of a kind woman, and I don’t think (from my knowledge on gender roles etc.) that many women welcomed that much more responsibility, or were bold enough to take it into their own hands. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to mention Sherman’s march – sure Sherman wasn’t the nicest, but the Yankees are so villain-ized that it proves how much hatred there really was between the confederates and Yankees. Even from what is considered a southern state, Virginia, I was never taught such a one sided account. One thing that was overlooked that we discussed in class was the Confederates’ path of destruction as well – they tried to eliminate food sources that the Yankees could later stumble upon. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie&amp;#039;s romanticizing of the antebellum South, it appeared to me that the movie completely glossed over whites who were not in the planter class elite. There were no representations of the poor whites, or really any whites who owned less than a score of slaves who were not city dwellers. Also, though there was a mention of some of the O&amp;#039;Hara slaves running off, many slaves chose to remain very loyal to the family despite the South&amp;#039;s tenuous hold on slavery. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Melanie supposed to be absolutely ignorant that Scarlett loves Ashley?  She and Scarlett were very close since Charles died and Scarlett moved in with her and her aunt, but part of Scarlett&amp;#039;s friendship is just a facade, because she promised her love that she&amp;#039;d look after Melanie.  You&amp;#039;d think that it wouldn&amp;#039;t take 8 or so years for someone to see Scarlett in Ashley&amp;#039;s arms and pick up on something. - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the deal with Scarlett&amp;#039;s cleavage?  Every other woman is dressed modestly except for Belle (no coincidence).  Once Scarlett returns to Tara and her father, she takes to wearing her pink dress WAY unbuttoned, and after that it seems like the only time you don&amp;#039;t see bare chest is when she&amp;#039;s in mourning!  But when she gets money and all these nice new clothes she does buy some dresses that cover her up more.  This all seems quite scandalous to be in a movie in 1939.  Someone mentioned &amp;quot;Aviator&amp;quot;--do you remember the cleavage discussion that went on with the board of censors? Yeah.  How easy was it to get that much on screen for GWTW? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
George Fitzhugh’s “The Blessings of Slavery” shows how ignorant white southern slave owners can be. The idea that a person is more happy in forced servitude than as a free citizen is ridiculous. Beyond that, it  meshes with stories of other slaveholders that were surprised when their slaves ran away – treating slaves well is better than treating them terribly, but they are still slaves. Gone with the Wind falls into this ignorance. Like most film productions where southern whites are slaveholders, the slaves love their masters like family. Mammy, Sissy, etc. (I can’t help but flashback to the Patriot as Mel helps his free black friends plow the field). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
So apparently the Civil War only affected white people....  Mammy and Prissy and the other old slave man all stay with Miss Scarlet and her family throughout the whole movie.  Not once is there mention of slaves being emancipated, and not once do the slaves mention being free (although we do see Old Sam is living away from them now, since he became a trench digger).  Through all that post-war poverty, and being the only blacks left on Tara, they stayed loyal.  But of course!  They&amp;#039;d always been treated and fed well and loved their white family and would never think of anything but staying. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The addressing of racial issues in Gone With The Wind was equally infuriating and heartbreaking. The thought that kept rushing through my head during the scenes with Mammy, Pris and Pork was it&amp;#039;s similarity to 1915&amp;#039;s Birth Of A Nation, which cost $110,000 to make and grossed $3 million in the US and $10 million worldwide. Gone With The Wind, to date, has grossed nearly $200 million dollars, after taking just under $4 million to produce. While BOAN was released 24 years previous to GWTW, it is clear that this racism is still prevalent and, as the above numbers show, commercially viable. In both films, the black characters were satirical caricatures of the southern slave population and were often seen not only as members of an inferior race but sometimes even as nothing more than loyal dogs. Human Beings or Man&amp;#039;s Best Friend? Unfortunately, this was clearly the southern attitude towards the black population. I suppose this racism is a great history lesson for those curious about race relations during the antebellum, in-war and post-war years, but it makes both films vastly uncomfortable viewing. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; is beautifully filmed and edited.  The use of color, music and other forms of mise en scene are spectacular, which a whole other class period could be devoted to for discussion.  One of  the scenes that stood out to me was when one of the soldiers comes back from battle and exclaims &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s over, the war is over, we surrendered!&amp;quot;  Immediately after this, the spectrum of reactions from the south is expressed in only a matter of seconds through a couple of lines (these lines are of course paraphrased to the best of my memory):  &amp;quot;Why did we ever go to war?&amp;quot; (feeling of reluctance and regret), &amp;quot;Oh (insert name of husband) is coming home!&amp;quot; (relief that a loved one made it alive), &amp;quot;We surrendered?!?!&amp;quot; (shock of losing the war). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say - the first half.... LONG and BORING. The second half - on the edge of my seat at times. I had to leave for a club meeting (for literally 5 minutes) and it was hard to pry myself away. I must say NOT what I expected. Also, I totally called the deaths of Bonnie (foreshadowing) and Melanie (classic Little Women-like Beth character). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing - symbolism... I felt that Scarlet&amp;#039;s love for Ashley (which tragically ended at the end at his wife&amp;#039;s death, when Scarlet finally really gets a clue and realizes Ashley has loved his wife all along) was symbolic for the death of the south. Not a very uplifting ending. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very nice insights, Elle.  I was just wondering the likelihood of someone like Scarlett&amp;#039;s character truly existing during the Civil War.  Her extremely demanding personality gave me no choice but to stereotype all white women in the south during that time; but, I still feel that nobody that hysterical could really be based off a real person(s).  I know a lot of it probably has to do with dramatic effect, but generalizing off of Elle&amp;#039;s interpretation of Scarlett&amp;#039;s love for Ashley symbolizing the death of the south, is Scarlett&amp;#039;s personality representative of the arrogance of the South and how that lead to severe psychological repercussions?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a demeaning image of a southern white lady, and how awful to have to play that role and reinforce this stereotype!  Scarlett is purely selfish, immature, whiny, vain, stubborn, hysterical, greedy...the list goes on.  Uggh!  And how she is in the beginning turning from one guy to another, entirely insincere and loving attention.  She marries to help herself and spite other men, and it takes until the loving, perfect Melanie dies for her to realize that Ashley was right when he said that he loved his wife and not her, and to realize that Rhett also loved her, like he always said he did.  And I don&amp;#039;t even need to go into her spending habits.  Frankly, I couldn&amp;#039;t give a damn what she did without Rhett, either.  To sum it up, as Elle said, &amp;quot;God, she&amp;#039;s pathetic.&amp;quot; -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is Rhett supposed to have become and stayed a millionaire? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet&amp;#039;s dismay.--Jackie Reed&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-01T05:43:24Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wholcomb86: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jackie said, there were a lot of things that the movie did get right, such as one scene where Rhett tells Scarlett that she has to date him because &amp;quot;there is no one else around older than 16 and younger than 60 to show [her] a good time.&amp;quot;  As we discussed in class, most of the men in the South during the Civil War between those ages were off fighting, and many of them died, posing a problem for the women back at home.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Rhett Butler&amp;#039;s first lines in this film is him explaining how the North was better equipped than the South, a reason why they shouldn&amp;#039;t have gone into war in the first place.  He states that while the North was armed with factories, superior weapons, and coal mines, all the South had were &amp;quot;slaves, cotton, and arrogance.&amp;quot;  This is a nice summary of the South&amp;#039;s economic dependence on the production of cotton, which is of course directly dependent on slave labor.  Furthermore, the &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; can be interpreted as their belief in white supremacy and how that may have driven the South to go to war (which the movie eventually proved to be destructive to them). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depiction of the civil war &amp;quot;hospitals&amp;quot; to be at least mildly accurate. They gave no sense of cleanliness or sterility, and were at times gruesome as Scarlett couldn&amp;#039;t handle bearing witness to the amputation sans chloroform. Perhaps there were some instances of nurse touching in the movie which was not allowed in real life, but it did portray one lady writing a letter for an incapacitated man as mentioned in the lecture. Also there was some sense that disease played just as important a role in the death toll as the war wounds. Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband falls to pneumonia, her mother to typhoid, and there were allusions to lice and other diseases in the &amp;quot;hospitals.&amp;quot; -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that&amp;#039;s maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It&amp;#039;s been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that &amp;quot;illegal raid&amp;quot; was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be nit-picky, but the scenes where Scarlett and Melanie are working as nurses for the wounded soldiers, they are bandaging the soldiers and taking their temperatures.  As we discussed in class, female nurses at this time would not be doing things like that; it would have been considered inappropriate, and they would have been doing tasks such as writing letters home for soldiers.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to women’s roles, it is apparent that Scarlet takes full advantage of the men being away. She keeps her role even when they return, managing the farm, the mill, the store, and her countless husbands. This example is of a truly one of a kind woman, and I don’t think (from my knowledge on gender roles etc.) that many women welcomed that much more responsibility, or were bold enough to take it into their own hands. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to mention Sherman’s march – sure Sherman wasn’t the nicest, but the Yankees are so villain-ized that it proves how much hatred there really was between the confederates and Yankees. Even from what is considered a southern state, Virginia, I was never taught such a one sided account. One thing that was overlooked that we discussed in class was the Confederates’ path of destruction as well – they tried to eliminate food sources that the Yankees could later stumble upon. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie&amp;#039;s romanticizing of the antebellum South, it appeared to me that the movie completely glossed over whites who were not in the planter class elite. There were no representations of the poor whites, or really any whites who owned less than a score of slaves who were not city dwellers. Also, though there was a mention of some of the O&amp;#039;Hara slaves running off, many slaves chose to remain very loyal to the family despite the South&amp;#039;s tenuous hold on slavery. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Melanie supposed to be absolutely ignorant that Scarlett loves Ashley?  She and Scarlett were very close since Charles died and Scarlett moved in with her and her aunt, but part of Scarlett&amp;#039;s friendship is just a facade, because she promised her love that she&amp;#039;d look after Melanie.  You&amp;#039;d think that it wouldn&amp;#039;t take 8 or so years for someone to see Scarlett in Ashley&amp;#039;s arms and pick up on something. - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the deal with Scarlett&amp;#039;s cleavage?  Every other woman is dressed modestly except for Belle (no coincidence).  Once Scarlett returns to Tara and her father, she takes to wearing her pink dress WAY unbuttoned, and after that it seems like the only time you don&amp;#039;t see bare chest is when she&amp;#039;s in mourning!  But when she gets money and all these nice new clothes she does buy some dresses that cover her up more.  This all seems quite scandalous to be in a movie in 1939.  Someone mentioned &amp;quot;Aviator&amp;quot;--do you remember the cleavage discussion that went on with the board of censors? Yeah.  How easy was it to get that much on screen for GWTW?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
George Fitzhugh’s “The Blessings of Slavery” shows how ignorant white southern slave owners can be. The idea that a person is more happy in forced servitude than as a free citizen is ridiculous. Beyond that, it  meshes with stories of other slaveholders that were surprised when their slaves ran away – treating slaves well is better than treating them terribly, but they are still slaves. Gone with the Wind falls into this ignorance. Like most film productions where southern whites are slaveholders, the slaves love their masters like family. Mammy, Sissy, etc. (I can’t help but flashback to the Patriot as Mel helps his free black friends plow the field). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
So apparently the Civil War only affected white people....  Mammy and Prissy and the other old slave man all stay with Miss Scarlet and her family throughout the whole movie.  Not once is there mention of slaves being emancipated, and not once do the slaves mention being free (although we do see Old Sam is living away from them now, since he became a trench digger).  Through all that post-war poverty, and being the only blacks left on Tara, they stayed loyal.  But of course!  They&amp;#039;d always been treated and fed well and loved their white family and would never think of anything but staying. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The addressing of racial issues in Gone With The Wind was equally infuriating and heartbreaking. The thought that kept rushing through my head during the scenes with Mammy, Pris and Pork was it&amp;#039;s similarity to 1915&amp;#039;s Birth Of A Nation, which cost $110,000 to make and grossed $3 million in the US and $10 million worldwide. Gone With The Wind, to date, has grossed nearly $200 million dollars, after taking just under $4 million to produce. While BOAN was released 24 years previous to GWTW, it is clear that this racism is still prevalent and, as the above numbers show, commercially viable. In both films, the black characters were satirical caricatures of the southern slave population and were often seen not only as members of an inferior race but sometimes even as nothing more than loyal dogs. Human Beings or Man&amp;#039;s Best Friend? Unfortunately, this was clearly the southern attitude towards the black population. I suppose this racism is a great history lesson for those curious about race relations during the antebellum, in-war and post-war years, but it makes both films vastly uncomfortable viewing. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; is beautifully filmed and edited.  The use of color, music and other forms of mise en scene are spectacular, which a whole other class period could be devoted to for discussion.  One of  the scenes that stood out to me was when one of the soldiers comes back from battle and exclaims &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s over, the war is over, we surrendered!&amp;quot;  Immediately after this, the spectrum of reactions from the south is expressed in only a matter of seconds through a couple of lines (these lines are of course paraphrased to the best of my memory):  &amp;quot;Why did we ever go to war?&amp;quot; (feeling of reluctance and regret), &amp;quot;Oh (insert name of husband) is coming home!&amp;quot; (relief that a loved one made it alive), &amp;quot;We surrendered?!?!&amp;quot; (shock of losing the war). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say - the first half.... LONG and BORING. The second half - on the edge of my seat at times. I had to leave for a club meeting (for literally 5 minutes) and it was hard to pry myself away. I must say NOT what I expected. Also, I totally called the deaths of Bonnie (foreshadowing) and Melanie (classic Little Women-like Beth character). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing - symbolism... I felt that Scarlet&amp;#039;s love for Ashley (which tragically ended at the end at his wife&amp;#039;s death, when Scarlet finally really gets a clue and realizes Ashley has loved his wife all along) was symbolic for the death of the south. Not a very uplifting ending. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very nice insights, Elle.  I was just wondering the likelihood of someone like Scarlett&amp;#039;s character truly existing during the Civil War.  Her extremely demanding personality gave me no choice but to stereotype all white women in the south during that time; but, I still feel that nobody that hysterical could really be based off a real person(s).  I know a lot of it probably has to do with dramatic effect, but generalizing off of Elle&amp;#039;s interpretation of Scarlett&amp;#039;s love for Ashley symbolizing the death of the south, is Scarlett&amp;#039;s personality representative of the arrogance of the South and how that lead to severe psychological repercussions?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a demeaning image of a southern white lady, and how awful to have to play that role and reinforce this stereotype!  Scarlett is purely selfish, immature, whiny, vain, stubborn, hysterical, greedy...the list goes on.  Uggh!  And how she is in the beginning turning from one guy to another, entirely insincere and loving attention.  She marries to help herself and spite other men, and it takes until the loving, perfect Melanie dies for her to realize that Ashley was right when he said that he loved his wife and not her, and to realize that Rhett also loved her, like he always said he did.  Frankly, I couldn&amp;#039;t give a damn what she did without Rhett, either.  To sum it up, as Elle said, &amp;quot;God, she&amp;#039;s pathetic.&amp;quot; -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet&amp;#039;s dismay.--Jackie Reed&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wholcomb86</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed><br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />