Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 329:question:329--week_3_questions_comments-2018 [2018/09/18 09:29] – [Errors in fact] jmcclurken
+++ 329:question:329--week_3_questions_comments-2018 [2018/09/18 13:06] (current) – [Questions about interpretation] 76.78.227.37
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 The movie includes Munro’s daughters Cora and Alice who are seen taking part in the war which there is no evidence to prove that they were involved or even in America at this time. – Courtlyn Plunkett
-In the opening of the film, it acknowledges that it is based off of Cooper’s novel. However, I believe they could have said inspired by or not even mentioned that filmmakers used Cooper’s novel as inspiration because they completely reworked it making it more of an action film. The last Mohican is Chingachgook not Hawkeye or Nathaniel as the theatrical poster lead me to believe and yet the movie centers around Nathaniel. I think filmmakers saw a box office hit in forbidden love between a Mohican and a Colonel’s daughter. Also it seemed they were really trying to make a romance bud between Unca and Alice. No to that. -Johana Colchado
+I**n the opening of the film, it acknowledges that it is based off of Cooper’s novel. However, I believe they could have said inspired by or not even mentioned that filmmakers used Coop**er’s novel as inspiration because they completely reworked it making it more of an action film. The last Mohican is Chingachgook not Hawkeye or Nathaniel as the theatrical poster lead me to believe and yet the movie centers around Nathaniel. I think filmmakers saw a box office hit in forbidden love between a Mohican and a Colonel’s daughter. Also it seemed they were really trying to make a romance bud between Unca and Alice. No to that. -Johana Colchado
 ====== Things the Movie got right ======
-The props, such as the weaponry chosen was historically accurate as well as the costume/dress the people were wearing during this era. I would even go as far as to say the portrayal of life during this time period was very accurate. -- Lindsey Sowers
+**The props, such as the weaponry chosen was historically accurate as well as the costume/dress the people were wearing during this era. I would even go as far as to say the portrayal of life during this time period was very accurate.** -- Lindsey Sowers
-The movie had a few things vaguely right, like Nathaniel being adopted into a Native family and the fact that few Native groups aligned with the British. It also had several places that exist in real life, and General Munro was a real person. It also used the correct Native tribe names. --Erin Shaw
+**The movie had a few things vaguely right, like Nathaniel being adopted into a Native family and the fact that few Native groups aligned with the British. It also had several places that exist in real life, and General Munro was a real person. It also used the correct Native tribe names.** --Erin Shaw
-The movie correctly portrayed how war was fought by European nations during the 18th century. The British and French soldiers fought using linear tactics. Also, the parlay ceremony was something typical of the 18th century. For European armies, war was viewed as an honorable thing, highly rooted in rules of decency that each side was expected to follow. It also portrayed fighting tactics unique to Native American warriors. The European methods of fighting were very foreign to their native allies. -Maddie Shiflett
+**The movie correctly portrayed how war was fought by European nations during the 18th century.** The British and French soldiers fought using linear tactics. Also, the parlay ceremony was something typical of the 18th century. For European armies, war was viewed as an honorable thing, highly rooted in rules of decency that each side was expected to follow. It also portrayed fighting tactics unique to Native American warriors. The European methods of fighting were very foreign to their native allies. -Maddie Shiflett
-Going off of Maddie, while they correctly portrayed how the soldiers fought in war, they also used the correct European fashion and weaponry for the time period. --Maryanna Stribling
+Going off of Maddie, while they correctly portrayed how the soldiers fought in war, **they also used the correct European fashion and weaponry for the time period.** --Maryanna Stribling
-Nathaniel mentions he learned English from Reverend Wheelock's school, a place we learned in class that was a Protestant school for the sons of English colonists. However, the movie takes place in 1757 when Nathaniel is an adult, yet the real school was established in 1769, therefore, Nathaniel is a time traveler who was 10 years old in 1769 yet somehow a grown adult in 1757. -- Jessica Lynch
+**Nathaniel mentions he learned English from Reverend Wheelock's school, a place we learned in class that was a Protestant school for the sons of English colonists**. However, the movie takes place in 1757 when Nathaniel is an adult, yet the real school was established in 1769, therefore, Nathaniel is a time traveler who was 10 years old in 1769 yet somehow a grown adult in 1757. -- Jessica Lynch
 The battel for Fort William Henry did happen, Col Monro did surrender to French General Montcalm, and his men were allowed to keep their weapons under conditions of parole but that would have meant they had no ammunition.  Which would explain why when the Huron ambushed them later they would have been massacred.  As others have mentioned, the uniforms and dress, battle tactics, flags and weapons all appear to be very accurate.   Oh, and the French will always form alliances with and exploit those to whom it best serves their own ends.  (ref: the rest of recorded history.)  -- Andrew Mullins
-Things the Movie got right were the Hurons alliance with the French during the war. As well as, the battle for Fort William Henry did occur and British commander Munro did surrender to French General Montcalm under the conditions they set. – Courtlyn Plunkett
+**Things the Movie got right were the Hurons alliance with the French during the war. As well as, the battle for Fort William Henry did occur and British commander Munro did surrender to French General Montcalm under the conditions they se**t. – Courtlyn Plunkett
-I felt like the movie did a good job depicting the scenery and the characters. I am not an expert on colonial and British garb, but after looking up some depictions of 18th-century attire, I think the movie did well recreating the clothing. I also was interested in the set locations and looked up the recreation of Fort McHenry! The Wikipedia page claims that it cost an estimated one million dollars to build. To put that much money into a set and not make it mostly historically accurate would have been a travesty. I will include a link to a website dedicated 100% to the filming of the movie at Lake James in North Carolina. The pictures are interesting and show the process of building the set! -Lake Wiley
+I felt like the movie did a good job depicting the scenery and the characters. I am not an expert on colonial and British garb, but after looking up some depictions of 18th-century attire, I think the movie did well recreating the clothing. I **also was interested in the set locations and looked up the recreation of Fort McHenry**! The Wikipedia page claims that it cost an estimated one million dollars to build. To put that much money into a set and not make it mostly historically accurate would have been a travesty. I will include a link to a website dedicated 100% to the filming of the movie at Lake James in North Carolina. The pictures are interesting and show the process of building the set! -Lake Wiley
 http://www.mohicanpress.com/mo06029.html
-The setting looked very similar to upstate New York and that area for being filmed in North Carolina, The way the British Army fought was portrayed very well and the weapons used were period accurate. Especially the French mortars as they were accurately and the looked very period specific. The fact that some of the colonials did not fight and that the tribes were divided was shown in the movie but not as accurately as the reasons for the colonists not fighting were not accurate. The burning of people was a punishment but I am not sure if the movie got the right causation for the punishment. --Jack Hagn
+The setting looked very similar to upstate New York and that area for being filmed in North Carolina, The way the British Army fought was portrayed very well and the weapons used were period accurate. Especially the French mortars as they were accurately and the looked very period specific.** The fact that some of the colonials did not fight and that the tribes were divided was shown in the movie but not as accurately as the reasons for the colonists not fighting were not accurate. The burning of people was a punishment but I am not sure if the movie got the right causation for the punishment**. --Jack Hagn
-The film did depict the tension between soldiers, Native Americans, and colonists appropriately. The British will commanding the colonists to sacrifice it all for the King but the colonists along the frontier are just barely surviving while all the Native American groups are being brought in to fight someones else’s war. They did seem to get the clothes for the Mohicans and Huron correct (I guess they only had enough in their budget to cast two tribes?) as well as the tools they used to hunt with and the weapons used in battle. - Johana Colchado
+The film did depict the tension between soldiers, Native Americans, and colonists appropriately. **The British will commanding the colonists to sacrifice it all for the King but the colonists along the frontier are just barely surviving while all the Native American groups are being brought in to fight someones else’s war. They did seem to get the clothes for the Mohicans and Huron correct (I guess they only had enough in their budget to cast two tribes?) a**s well as the tools they used to hunt with and the weapons used in battle. - Johana Colchado
 The movie got a lot of the facts surrounding the setting and bigger picture conflict right. However, most of the characters are fictional as is the romance and the resulting personal drama.--Sam Hartz
 The movie got the landscape and background right, I mean in a oh that’s lovely to look at sort of way, the cinematography got a good bit of praise from reviewers...the historical accuracy of that...well they mainly filmed the movie in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina, even though the story took place in upstate New York wilderness. Secret time, I couldn’t get into this movie, I watched it to the end and thought, welp that was a great historically inaccurate movie that was based off a novel that set the foundation for stereotypes that we are still dealing with today. I don’t know why I went into it so cynically. Maybe it’s my high dislike for Daniel Day-Lewis and his acting, I don’t know if he wronged me in a past life or what, but I’d prefer not to look at his face whenever possible. Perhaps I couldn’t get into it because of all the ridiculous wigs the British wore and therefore nothing they said or did seemed serious. I’m not entirely sure, my finger can’t be placed accurately. -Amiti Colson
+One thing I was pleasantly surprised by was the fact that nearly every major Native American role (with the obvious exception of Daniel Day-Lewis' portrayal of Hawkeye) was played by an actor of Native American descent. Russell Means, the actor who played Chingachgook, also played Powhatan in //Pocahantas//, and was a prominent activist for Native American rights in his capacity as leader of the American Indian Movement.
+Source: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0575184/?ref_=nv_sr_1
+~Will Everett
 ====== Questions about interpretation ======
-The movie, despite being about Native Americans and their adopted white counterpart, did not focus much on Native perspectives. The two men who traveled with Nathaniel had very few lines and were often left out of scenes, and the only Native with a significant impact on the story was Magua, who was evil and a "savage". I found it interesting that the "good natives" were dressed in more Western clothes and did not speak, while the "savages" wore traditional clothes, war paint, and spoke up for themselves. It seems like a way to emphasize that Native voices and cultures are not important. --Erin Shaw
+**The movie, despite being about Native Americans and their adopted white counterpart, did not focus much on Native perspectives. The two men who traveled with Nathaniel had very few lines and were often left out of scenes, and the only Native with a significant impact on the story was Magua, who was evil and a "savage". I found it interesting that the "good natives" were dressed in more Western clothes and did not speak, while the "savages" wore traditional clothes, war paint, and spoke up for themselves. It seems like a way to emphasize that Native voices and cultures are not important. --Erin Shaw**
+**Although the character of Magua is blood-thirsty, dishonest, and cruel, I think that casting him as the villain of the film does not consider his own point of view.** To Magua, he is doing what he must to survive and to sustain his way of life. The Mohicans had their reasons for supporting the British and frontiersmen, just as Magua had his own reasons for supporting the French. In the end, Magua expresses that he wants to make new terms of trade with the French that are more beneficial to the Hurons. Magua did have a good reason for disliking the British; they did, after all, destroy his village. I think the plight of Magua is downplayed a lot. -Maddie Shiflett
-Although the character of Magua is blood-thirsty, dishonest, and cruel, I think that casting him as the villain of the film does not consider his own point of view. To Magua, he is doing what he must to survive and to sustain his way of life. The Mohicans had their reasons for supporting the British and frontiersmen, just as Magua had his own reasons for supporting the French. In the end, Magua expresses that he wants to make new terms of trade with the French that are more beneficial to the Hurons. Magua did have a good reason for disliking the British; they did, after all, destroy his village. I think the plight of Magua is downplayed a lot. -Maddie Shiflett
+**I thought the movie painted a pretty good job at some of the problems faced by everyone at the time. Colonists wanting to protect their families, British soldiers wanting to protect their own interests, there was even dialogue of working the French and British against each other. As well as how individual agendas became problematic for peaceful relations.** --William Roszell
-I thought the movie painted a pretty good job at some of the problems faced by everyone at the time. Colonists wanting to protect their families, British soldiers wanting to protect their own interests, there was even dialogue of working the French and British against each other. As well as how individual agendas became problematic for peaceful relations. --William Roszell
+It's hard to get proper answers as to why certain things are done the way they are when it comes to a film adaptation; the easy scapegoat in this situation is that "this is the way it was done in the source material." As it was previously stated in this portion of the comments, for a film called //The Last of the Mohicans//, the Mohicans really did take a backseat to the war between the French and the English. That's not to say Hawkeye didn't get his fair share of the limelight, but his father's line of him saying that he himself was the "last of the Mohicans" calls into question their lack of a more central role in this film. **If the central focus of the story is the battle of Fort William Henry; the tension between the British and the Colonists, and the animosity of the Huron (specifically Magua) toward Europeans in general, then why are you trying to tell us this is about the Mohicans?** --Robert Dallas
-It's hard to get proper answers as to why certain things are done the way they are when it comes to a film adaptation; the easy scapegoat in this situation is that "this is the way it was done in the source material." As it was previously stated in this portion of the comments, for a film called //The Last of the Mohicans//, the Mohicans really did take a backseat to the war between the French and the English. That's not to say Hawkeye didn't get his fair share of the limelight, but his father's line of him saying that he himself was the "last of the Mohicans" calls into question their lack of a more central role in this film. If the central focus of the story is the battle of Fort William Henry; the tension between the British and the Colonists, and the animosity of the Huron (specifically Magua) toward Europeans in general, then why are you trying to tell us this is about the Mohicans? --Robert Dallas
+**It was interesting to see the differences in depiction between Magua and Hawkeye's father and brother. Magua while speaking English tends to speak mainly in the third person while the Hawkeye's father, Chingachgook, speaks mainly in Mohawk and when he goes speak English it is very short and proper English. Even down to the way they dress. Chingachgook and Uncas dress more like the English settlers while the Hurons and Magua dress in a way that falls under the traditional stereotype of a way a Native American person is depicted. Is this just another way of separating the "good" native Americans from the enemy or was there research that backs up this choice in depiction?--** Ellora Larsen
-It was interesting to see the differences in depiction between Magua and Hawkeye's father and brother. Magua while speaking English tends to speak mainly in the third person while the Hawkeye's father, Chingachgook, speaks mainly in Mohawk and when he goes speak English it is very short and proper English. Even down to the way they dress. Chingachgook and Uncas dress more like the English settlers while the Hurons and Magua dress in a way that falls under the traditional stereotype of a way a Native American person is depicted. Is this just another way of separating the "good" native Americans from the enemy or was there research that backs up this choice in depiction?-- Ellora Larsen
+**I thought the last scene after Magua, Alice, and Uncas and dozens of incompetent Huron warriors are killed Chingachgook gives his speech honoring the “last Mohican” was a bit confusing.  Was he referring to himself as the last Mohican, or (as I thought) referring to his son Uncas, who would technically be ‘the last Mohican’ since he was younger and genealogically the last one?  OR was this a metaphorical reference to how the white man had killed off the Indians and he represented their ultimate fate that of the Last Of The (insert Indian tribe name here)?**  Anyway, I think the movie takes liberties with Cooper’s novel, but since it is fiction anyway, it did clean up some of the mess that Cooper originally wrote.  -- Andrew Mullins
-I thought the last scene after Magua, Alice, and Uncas and dozens of incompetent Huron warriors are killed Chingachgook gives his speech honoring the “last Mohican” was a bit confusing.  Was he referring to himself as the last Mohican, or (as I thought) referring to his son Uncas, who would technically be ‘the last Mohican’ since he was younger and genealogically the last one?  OR was this a metaphorical reference to how the white man had killed off the Indians and he represented their ultimate fate that of the Last Of The (insert Indian tribe name here)?  Anyway, I think the movie takes liberties with Cooper’s novel, but since it is fiction anyway, it did clean up some of the mess that Cooper originally wrote.  -- Andrew Mullins
+The choice to largely portray the "Americans" as the most sympathetic characters were interesting. I found that colonial militiamen and their families were far more sympathetic against the slightly tyrannical British officers. Although they would have viewed themselves as British citizens of a particular colony, the movie depicts them as beginning to dislike and resist British rule. **Although we are on the British "side" during the movie, they veer into being borderline villains against the American colonists. Since this was an American-made movie for a largely American audience, was this a choice to give viewers something else to root for besides Cora and Nathaniel's romanc**e? -Jessie Fitzgerald
-The choice to largely portray the "Americans" as the most sympathetic characters were interesting. I found that colonial militiamen and their families were far more sympathetic against the slightly tyrannical British officers. Although they would have viewed themselves as British citizens of a particular colony, the movie depicts them as beginning to dislike and resist British rule. Although we are on the British "side" during the movie, they veer into being borderline villains against the American colonists. Since this was an American-made movie for a largely American audience, was this a choice to give viewers something else to root for besides Cora and Nathaniel's romance? -Jessie Fitzgerald
+**I wonder how the love interest between Cora and Nathaniel would have actually been viewed to the colonists during the time period. Would it be okay because Nathaniel is white? Or frowned upon because he was apart of a Native American tribe?** --Maryanna Stribling
-I wonder how the love interest between Cora and Nathaniel would have actually been viewed to the colonists during the time period. Would it be okay because Nathaniel is white? Or frowned upon because he was apart of a Native American tribe? --Maryanna Stribling
+The movie was entirely focused on the superiority of Western culture, with the Native Americans that rejected the Western culture being demonized. **France and Britain are mostly showed in a positive manner, as they are the only ones to be able to negotiate a peaceful solution to their battles. In comparison, the Native Americans are only able to solve their issues with the death of Magua.** The only negative light that is thrown onto Britain is how they will not value the colonists desire to return home to defend it. Furthering the Western push, the main character is white and is the “Native American” that does the negotiating to try to keep the peace. However, this interpretation doesn’t really show the ways that the Native Americans could have been justified in fighting the colonists, with the closest character to this being Magua.--Sky Horne
-The movie was entirely focused on the superiority of Western culture, with the Native Americans that rejected the Western culture being demonized. France and Britain are mostly showed in a positive manner, as they are the only ones to be able to negotiate a peaceful solution to their battles. In comparison, the Native Americans are only able to solve their issues with the death of Magua. The only negative light that is thrown onto Britain is how they will not value the colonists desire to return home to defend it. Furthering the Western push, the main character is white and is the “Native American” that does the negotiating to try to keep the peace. However, this interpretation doesn’t really show the ways that the Native Americans could have been justified in fighting the colonists, with the closest character to this being Magua.--Sky Horne
+I found it interesting that the movie seemed to put so much emphasis on the idea of being American. Both the French and English were portrayed as harsh and tyrannical, fighting their European war on the American land of the colonists and Mohicans. The Huron tribe were made out to be monsters, murdering colonists. There were several points in the movie where characters questioned why they were expected to put their loyalty to the British crown's fight over their own families, and **by portraying the larger powers as not all that morally distinguishable from each other emphasized that to the audience I thin**k.--Sam Hartz
-I found it interesting that the movie seemed to put so much emphasis on the idea of being American. Both the French and English were portrayed as harsh and tyrannical, fighting their European war on the American land of the colonists and Mohicans. The Huron tribe were made out to be monsters, murdering colonists. There were several points in the movie where characters questioned why they were expected to put their loyalty to the British crown's fight over their own families, and by portraying the larger powers as not all that morally distinguishable from each other emphasized that to the audience I think.--Sam Hartz
+The stereotype of 'Native American=good tracker' was alive and well in this film. The scene where Hawkeye, Chingachgook, and Uncas returned to the Cameron homestead, and were able to tell that those who burned the house were "one Iroquois and two Français" based solely upon one vague footprint in the dirt. However, since I have not read the original novel that this film is based on, I cannot say whether this is a fault which originates from the source material, or simply an addition to the film made to reinforce certain stereotypical characteristics of Native Americans. ~Will Everett
 ====== The movie as a primary source of its time ======
-In the original novel Cora is of mixed race, which is why Duncan will not marry her. Why did the filmmakers choose to change that aspect of her character, and what does that say about prominent values of the 90’s?  -Maddie Shiflett
+**In the original novel Cora is of mixed race, which is why Duncan will not marry her. Why did the filmmakers choose to change that aspect of her character, and what does that say about prominent values of the 90**’s?  -Maddie Shiflett
-Although I do agree with Maddie, Cora, in the movie was "westernized", I also think it was an empowering role that Madeliene Stowe (Cora) played. Cora was confident in herself and her decisions. She was smart and she was a strong female role. She did not want to marry Duncan and she stood by her decision the whole movie. Cora called Duncan out for being dishonest and always spoke her truth; whether that be with Duncan, her father, or Hawkeye. I think that spoke measures about the time the movie was filmed (90s). This movie was released during the beginning of the third wave of feminism, where women played roles that depicted the female character as being smart, strong, and independent!!!!!!!!--Caroline Collier
+Although I do agree with Maddie, Cora, in the movie was "westernized", **I also think it was an empowering role that Madeliene Stowe (Cora) played. Cora was confident in herself and her decisions. She was smart and she was a strong female role. She did not want to marry Duncan and she stood by her decision the whole movie. Cora called Duncan out for being dishonest and always spoke her truth; whether that be with Duncan, her father, or Hawkeye. I think that spoke measures about the time the movie was filmed (90s). This movie was released during the beginning of the third wave of feminism, where women played roles that depicted the female character as being smart, strong, and independent**!!!!!!!!--Caroline Collier
 Brunell, Laura, and Elinor Burkett. "Feminism." Encyclopædia Britannica. July 06, 2018. Accessed September 17, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism/The-third-wave-of-feminism.
-Yes! Cora’s character is great! She wants to be independent and essentially ‘friend-zones’ Heyward. This might be a stretch but that is kind of what the Colonies did to England (after some fighting of course). Therefore, maybe Cora and Hayward’s relationship was supposed to a reflection of the struggling relationship and impending breakup of the Colonies and England? Again, that is just an idea, I just really like hidden symbolism in movies. Of course, she does end up choosing her own mate, Nathanial because every Hollywood movie wants some romance. But choosing to include moments like surviving intense warfare, choosing her own ‘true love’, and yelling at and standing up to her father is a reflection of the girl power and feminist movement in the nineties. While her representation may not have been of most 18th century women, Cora’s character gives the movie more to work with her independent personality. -Lake Wiley
+Yes! Cora’s character is great! **She wants to be independent and essentially ‘friend-zones’ Heyward**. This might be a stretch but that is kind of what the Colonies did to England (after some fighting of course). **Therefore, maybe Cora and Hayward’s relationship was supposed to a reflection of the struggling relationship and impending breakup of the Colonies and England?** Again, that is just an idea, I just really like hidden symbolism in movies. Of course, she does end up choosing her own mate, Nathanial because every Hollywood movie wants some romance. But choosing to include moments like surviving intense warfare, choosing her own ‘true love’, and yelling at and standing up to her father is a reflection of the girl power and feminist movement in the nineties. **While her representation may not have been of most 18th century women, Cora’s character gives the movie more to work with her independent personality.** -Lake Wiley
-One thing that I think is interesting about this film that reflects the time in which it was made was that they had a movie featuring Native American culture, but the main characters were white. The English characters were traveling with Native American guides and the hero of the movie is one of the Mohicans, but he is a white man who was adopted into the culture. It has a Euro-centric focus that was not questioned in the time this film was made. – Carolyn Stough
+One thing that I think is interesting about this film that reflects the time in which it was made was **that they had a movie featuring Native American culture, but the main characters were white. The English characters were traveling with Native American guides and the hero of the movie is one of the Mohicans, but he is a white man who was adopted into the culture. It has a Euro-centric focus that was not questioned in the time this film was made**. – Carolyn Stough
-A few people have brought up the point that this movie is more of a romantic/adventure type movie than a super historical film as well as the push for more minority and Native American story lines which I think are both important factors contributing to the making of this film. Especially because of the fictional characters, is this more for entertainment with a side of content rather than content that was made entertaining.
+A few people have brought up the point that this movie is more of a romantic/adventure type movie than a super historical film as well as the push for more minority and Native American story lines which I think are both important factors contributing to the making of this film. **Especially because of the fictional characters, is this more for entertainment with a side of content rather than content that was made entertaining.**
-The movie puts forth two very different presentations of Native Americans. On the one hand, there are the Native Americans represented by Magua, who sided with the French. These Native Americans are extremely violent, with Magua even cutting out the heart of Munro, have war paint, and speak broken English. On the other side of the is the Mohicans, who dress in more European clothing, speak perfect English, and are the only Native Americans that try to find a diplomatic way to solve issues. This shows a desire during the 90s to demonstrate the Native Americans who accepted aspects of European culture as more civilized and antagonize those that didn’t and intended to establish their own nation that could compete with the European powers. --Sky Horne
+**The movie puts forth two very different presentations of Native Americans. On the one hand, there are the Native Americans represented by Magua, who sided with the French. These Native Americans are extremely violent, with Magua even cutting out the heart of Munro, have war paint, and speak broken English. On the other side of the is the Mohicans, who dress in more European clothing, speak perfect English, and are the only Native Americans that try to find a diplomatic way to solve issues. This shows a desire during the 90s to demonstrate the Native Americans who accepted aspects of European culture as more civilized and antagonize those that didn’t and intended to establish their own nation that could compete with the European powers.** --Sky Horne
-I think Cora was a woman ahead of her time, after realizing what a catch Nathaniel was (I mean who wouldn’t after having a deep conversation while stargazing?) she brought Heyward’s ego  back down to earth by telling him what was what that she couldn’t marry a liar. It was empowering for her to say all of that to Heyward, especially in front of Colonel Munro. In regards to the representation of Native American groups during that time period, they severely lacked in that area. There were more than two tribes who were involved and I do think it had potential to be more historically accurate but it couldn't compete with the forbidden love moneymaker. -Johana Colchado
+I **think Cora was a woman ahead of her time, after realizing what a catch Nathaniel was (I mean who wouldn’t after having a deep conversation while stargazing?) she brought Heyward’s ego  back down to earth by telling him what was what that she couldn’t marry a liar. It was empowering for her to say all of that to Heyward, especially in front of Colonel Munro. In regards to the representation of Native American groups during that time period, they severely lacked in that area. There were more than two tribes who were involved and I do think it had potential to be more historically accurate but it couldn't compete with the forbidden love moneymaker.** -Johana Colchado