Difference between revisions of "329--Week 5 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→b Inaccurate/issues:) |
(→b Inaccurate/issues:) |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
Was it accurate to have Evangelicals wearing crosses? I was under the impression that wearing a cross was much more prevalent in Catholicism and that it was more common for Evangelicals to carry around Bibles. -- Mallory C. | Was it accurate to have Evangelicals wearing crosses? I was under the impression that wearing a cross was much more prevalent in Catholicism and that it was more common for Evangelicals to carry around Bibles. -- Mallory C. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I take issue with the storyline that centers around the replacement of the judge. This did not happen, the case was appealed to another court. The film makes it look like Van Buren intervened in the proceedings and placed a judge on the bench that would rule against the Mende. The new judge is described as young, Catholic, and without anything to prove- a pawn of the Van Buren/ Calhoun contingency. Why would the film makers fabricate this part of the storyline? If the film makers wanted to demonize the governmental leaders of the time for their racist attitudes and policies, couldn’t they have just used the actual words of the men who held those beliefs? I’m sure we would find them offensive enough.- Jason Ward | ||
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time == | == 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time == | ||
