Difference between revisions of "329--Week 6 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→b Inaccurate/issues:) |
(→2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time) |
||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
== 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 == | ||
| − | 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 | + | '''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 |
| − | 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 | + | 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 |
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'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) | 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'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) | ||
| − | In Schurz'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'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 | + | In Schurz'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'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 |
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre == | == 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre == | ||
