Difference between revisions of "329--Week 3 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→1a Right:) |
(→1b Inaccurate/issues:) |
||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
Question- This may come across, unintentionally, as ignorant but were the Huron unusually violent? The reading ''First Peoples'' explains that war parties came prepared with clothing and moccasins when abducting their captives which seems somewhat thoughtful. I know this doesn't describe every war party, especially Magua's tribe because we learn that he is going after Col. Munro in order to avenge his family's death, but it was just something I kept in mind while watching ''The Last of the Mohicans'' since in the movie the Huron kill the settlers and pillage their homes. However, I chalked this up to being an example of the film's historical inaccuracy. Again, this doesn't pertain to all tribes but in the movie the women are called "dogs" and "slaves" were as in the reading ''First Peoples'' it is said that women and children were treated well because they were being adopted into the community. These two examples prove that the director's main objective was to create an intriguing story. In my opinon, the movie was a little too concerned with the romantic aspect of history (i.e. good vs. evil), similar to ''Pocahontas'', rather than being a sound example of historical facts. --Mallory C. | Question- This may come across, unintentionally, as ignorant but were the Huron unusually violent? The reading ''First Peoples'' explains that war parties came prepared with clothing and moccasins when abducting their captives which seems somewhat thoughtful. I know this doesn't describe every war party, especially Magua's tribe because we learn that he is going after Col. Munro in order to avenge his family's death, but it was just something I kept in mind while watching ''The Last of the Mohicans'' since in the movie the Huron kill the settlers and pillage their homes. However, I chalked this up to being an example of the film's historical inaccuracy. Again, this doesn't pertain to all tribes but in the movie the women are called "dogs" and "slaves" were as in the reading ''First Peoples'' it is said that women and children were treated well because they were being adopted into the community. These two examples prove that the director's main objective was to create an intriguing story. In my opinon, the movie was a little too concerned with the romantic aspect of history (i.e. good vs. evil), similar to ''Pocahontas'', rather than being a sound example of historical facts. --Mallory C. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Minavavan reading focused on how the Algonkians had not accepted the English as the replacements for the French. Minavavan makes the distinction that just because the French might be out of the power struggle, the Algonkians were by no means going to cede their land and culture passively. "Englishmen, although you have conquered the French, you have not yet conquered us! We are not your slaves." In the final sentences of Minavavan's speech he insinuates a leeriness of the English, but acknowledges no aggression on their part- offering a peace pipe. Sadly, I think the movie took too much creative license and distorted the actual sentiments of the Native Americans (from what I can gather from this particular reading). In the movie the French and English made an agreement that the English would move on from the fort, but on their journey the English were ambushed by a band of native attackers. I think it is safe to say that the American Indians who had fought alongside the French would be upset with a changing of the guard, but I do not get the sense that they were willing to continue fighting independently. - Jason Ward | ||
== 2 Film's relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time == | == 2 Film's relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time == | ||
