Difference between revisions of "329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
B4ssm4st3r (Talk | contribs) (→Questions asked in class) |
B4ssm4st3r (Talk | contribs) (→Things the movie got right) |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
Another aspect the movie got right was when Magua and Nathaniel came to the Huron to offer gifts. In the readings and class we learned that exchanging gifts was an important part of the Indian culture. Magua offered the gifts of people and Nathanial offered some kind of wampum I think. From this week's readings, however, most Indian captives were not offered as gifts to be killed but most became adopted into families and treated fairly decently. Amy V. | Another aspect the movie got right was when Magua and Nathaniel came to the Huron to offer gifts. In the readings and class we learned that exchanging gifts was an important part of the Indian culture. Magua offered the gifts of people and Nathanial offered some kind of wampum I think. From this week's readings, however, most Indian captives were not offered as gifts to be killed but most became adopted into families and treated fairly decently. Amy V. | ||
| − | The movie definitely got more facts right than Disney's Pocahontas! One thing the movie did well on was showing the Indian's dependence on European settlers. It was very easy to tell that the Huron Indians depended greatly on the French in 2 ways... a) Where else would the Indians have found weapons such as guns to fight with? b) The relationship between the Indians and the French. Both sides knew they could use the other to get what they want. The Hurons, especially Magua, wanted revenge on the English for killing their children and families through settlement. On the other hand, the French saw the Indians as excess manpower to fight off the English at Ft. William Henry. In both cases, the French got what they wanted as did the Hurons. Just as in the actual French & Indian War, the Indians and Europeans gambled/sided with one another in order to achieve their own agendas. I think the movie did a good job portraying the Indian/European relationship. --- Alex M. | + | The movie definitely got more facts right than Disney's Pocahontas! One thing the movie did well on was showing the Indian's dependence on European settlers. It was very easy to tell that the Huron Indians depended greatly on the French in 2 ways... a) Where else would the Indians have found weapons such as guns to fight with? b) The relationship between the Indians and the French. Both sides knew they could use the other to get what they want. The Hurons, especially Magua, wanted revenge on the English for killing their children and families through settlement. On the other hand, the French saw the Indians as excess manpower to fight off the English at Ft. William Henry. In both cases, the French got what they wanted as did the Hurons. Just as in the actual French & Indian War, the Indians and Europeans gambled/sided with one another in order to achieve their own agendas. I think the movie did a good job portraying the Indian/European relationship. --- Alex M. |
| + | |||
| + | I think the movie did a good job portraying the relationship between the Colonists/British and Native Americans, like Alex said. I also think that the movie did a good job portraying how the British felt about the Native Americans who chose to help them by scouting for the British, they had very little respect and there was a lot of mistrust. - Jenn | ||
== Things the movie got wrong == | == Things the movie got wrong == | ||
