Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_3_questions_comments-2026 [2026/09/10 01:36] – 104.131.24.154
+++ 329:question:329--week_3_questions_comments-2026 [2026/09/12 18:43] (current) – 104.131.24.154
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ======How does this movie work as a secondary source about the past? What does the movie get right about history?======
-In contrast to the recently previewed film, Pocahontas (year), The Last of the Mohicans is a significantly more reputable secondary source, depicting a series of historical events—such as the famed surrender of Fort William Henry—pertaining to the French and Indian War. Most notably, beyond the film's romantic subplot between the fictional Hawkeye and Cora Munro, it displays multiple instances of relatively civil diplomatic relations between the French and the Mohicans. A scene is similarly depicted through correspondence between Christian Frederick Post and Shingas, Tamaquea, and other Delawares, dubbed the Response to the Moravian Ambassador (1758): “It is told to us that you and the French contrived the war, to waste the Indians between you; and that you and the French intend to divide the land between you…Brother, I suppose you know something about it; or has the Governor stopped your mouth, that you cannot tell us?” - Bailee E.
+The //Last of the Mohicans// provides a general sense of the French and Indian War, though the role of Native Americans and the war itself is mostly background to the love story between Cora and Hawkeye. Several aspects of the movie are historically correct. The French siege of Fort William Henry is mostly realistic. For example, the French did use thousands of Native Americans to bolster its forces. British Colonel Munro commanded the fort, used colonial militia to help defend the fort, and had to surrender because General Webb refused to send reinforcements. French General Montcalm allowed Munro to depart the fort with honor. Though the movie does correctly portray Native Americans as playing a crucial role in the French and Indian War, it does not fully explore the motivations of certain tribes for allying with either the French or the British. - Charles S.
+In contrast to the recently previewed film, Pocahontas (year), The Last of the Mohicans is a significantly more reputable secondary source, depicting a series of historical events—such as the famed surrender of Fort William Henry—pertaining to the French and Indian War. Most notably, beyond the film's romantic subplot between the fictional Hawkeye and Cora Munro, it displays multiple instances of relatively civil diplomatic relations between the French, British colonialists, and the Mohicans. A scene is similarly depicted through correspondence between Christian Frederick Post and Shingas, Tamaquea, and other Delawares, dubbed the Response to the Moravian Ambassador (1758): “It is told to us that you and the French contrived the war, to waste the Indians between you; and that you and the French intend to divide the land between you…Brother, I suppose you know something about it; or has the Governor stopped your mouth, that you cannot tell us?” - Bailee E.
 The Last of the Mohicans depicts the social dynamics between the British military, British colonists, and Native Americans that existed at this point in colonial history. Early on into the movie there's a scene where the colonists are being asked by British military officials to form a militia and/or fight on behalf of the British army, but some of the colonists refuse, voicing that they're concerned for themselves and their families if the French were to attack them, which falls in line with was we learned in class about how at this point colonists were still yes loyal to the British crown, but now they had much more identity as self-interest in their respective colony. I think the depictions Native Americans in this film were much more nuanced compared to Pocahontas (shocker there) and having never seen this film before or knowing much about it, I was surprised to see that they showed the conflicts between the different tribes/groups, the Huron and Mohicans, and their different points of view when it came to the war. -- Grayson D.
@@ Line 14: / Line 16: @@
 I think it has a good balance in placement in pertaining to the french and indian war. there was a big war over power accuring between two states and both parties had specific alliances with different native american groups. Another point is that the aggreement made on cease fire or ending everything was based on history. Monro surrendered and then Montcalm made it posisble for the British to leave their post peacfully and head to another area.- jess C.
+The film gets a few things correct, such as the location of the tribes and the aspects of the French and Indian War, such as the surrender of Fort Henry (though it was still dramtised). The dynamics are fairly accurate as well, especially between the British and British colonists as well as the Natives. The film accurately portrays the power trip most of the British military had over the colonists, especially how even if the colonists and natives disagreed, they would be punished even if they were correct as it "was not their place" to speak up
+-Ellie I
 The movie works as a secondary source because it shows how the filmmakers in 1992 were interpreting and portraying the French and Indian War for a modern audience, but not how the war actually unfolded. It gives a modern retelling of 1757, shaped by 1990s ideas about Native peoples, colonial conflict, and frontier life. What the movie gets right is the broad setting. [The Siege of Fort William Henry, the alliances between the European powers, and Native nations, and the general look and feel of mid-18th-century warfare. What’s fictional about the movie is most of its characters, relationships, and dramatic events. Those are parts of the storytelling of the film, not the history of the event. —-Cait. Edwards.
@@ Line 22: / Line 27: @@
 The core historical framework is accurate, Colonel George Monroe commanded Fort William Henry in August 1757, General Webb failed to dispatch reinforcements from Fort Edward, and French Marquis de Montcalm granted the British garrison generous European "honors of war" (parole, keeping their flags and weapons without ammunition) upon surrender. The portrayal of Native American ambush tactics, hitting hard from tree cover, taking advantage of British infantry formations in dense forests, reflects actual combat conditions such as the 1755 Battle of the Monongahela. The film correctly highlights the close economic, trade, and military relationships between the French and Indigenous nations conversely the English and Native relationship. - Tyler J.
+While there are many inaccuracies within the film, it could work as a secondary source because it shows a few themes/concepts for Native Americans and for the British. One of the first would be towards the beginning of the movie with the concept of religion and Christianity being brought over to Americans by the English settlers. Locations of the tribes were correct as well during this time most of the tribes were found in Eastern Woodlands. -- Shelby Hawley
+This movie works as a secondary source because it gets the timeline, look, and overall distinction of what was going on correct. The look of the mohawk Indians in the movie is very accurate to the one in our slideshow. The look of the British and French in their uniforms is very accurate to what I have seen in other books and movies. This movie shows the war very profoundly as the Indians attack the British a lot. The British talk about Albany a lot which is where King Henry's fort was so that's accurate. I don't hear them say anything about the Ohio area, but that land was largely claimed by the Indians at the time so that's probably why. I think King Henry's fort looks very accurate as there were limited rooms for the captain and his daughters. It looked to be pretty heavily attacked during their spites with the French and the Indians so it makes sense. -- Autumn Morris
+The Last of the Mohicans works more as a romanticized story than a true historical explanation, but it still captures the general atmosphere of the French and Indian War. It gets the big things right—the siege of Fort William Henry, the tension between British and French forces, and the way Native nations were pulled into colonial conflicts. But the movie leans hard into drama and myth, especially with its portrayal of Native peoples, which is shaped more by old stereotypes than real history. It’s useful for understanding how Americans imagine the past, not how the past actually unfolded. -Alyssa Gomez
 ======Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?======
+The movie fictionalizes, dramatizes, and sometimes simplifies certain aspects of the war and the role Native Americans played. Hawkeye, Chingachgook, Uncas, and Magua are fictional characters in the 1826 historical fiction novel by James Fenimore Cooper.  While Colonel Munro was a historical figure, he had no children, and the Mohicans were not in danger of becoming extinct. Nonetheless, these inaccuracies are probably minor, especially in comparison to those in //Pocahontas// and other such films. For example, the final scene is one of many artistic licenses the director took in the movie but it is meant to be symbolic and generally works within the story's arc. - Charles S.
 A major problem with the films historical accuracy is that it changed or invented many characters and/or events for the dramatic effect the film can have. For example, Colonel Munro didn’t have two daughters (shown in the film), and he did not die during the attack(he died months later). The movie also exaggerated and simplifies the massacre following the surrender of Fort William Henry and portrays the Native American group in a more stereotypical kind of way than in the way the historical records supports. ——— Cait. Edwards.
+SOme probelms were probably how much exgaggeration the massacre gets at Fort W. H. I believe the movie made it appear to be more organized and it had a lot more casulties that history played it out to be. I think as well that it was really navigateable for politics and allies of Native americans to not be shared with the British. The movie gets the setting and the people almost right while needing to lessen the empahzises on the important part when it comes to the exaggerations. -jess c.
 The biggest issue of the movie, in my opinion, is how it portrays native americans in a very stereotypical way. It has the “noble savage” pitted against just the “savage,” as shown by the main characters vs. the Huron (I believe). While a lot of the movie was relatively accurate, notably the tribe names, geography, clothing and setting, a lot of the dialogue and portrayal of natives deviates. The Mohicans as a tribe also did not die out during the 1700s, there are members of that tribe today. -Katie D
+In terms of historical inaccuracies there are of course the made-up plots and characters. Especially regarding the romance between Hawkeye and Cora. But as mentioned the film uses the "noble savage" trope with Hawkeye and the Huron. Where Hawkeye and his tribe were seen as more "civilized" than the Huron, they were less violent and was more clothes, which while accurate enough to their cultures can still be questioned. Especially when the most prominent "noble savage" character is Hawkeye, a white man raised among the Mohicans.
+-Ellie I
 As others have mentioned, the primary problem of this film's historical accuracy is things that were made up for the drama and plot of the film. Of course, watching a historical film with no added drama or characters might be more akin to watching a documentary, so it seems like of course the filmmakers had to make that choice. It struck me throughout the film how stereotypically the Native Americans were portrayed, though it wasn't as bad as with //Pocahontas//. -Ezra C.
 The movie's biggest accuracy problem is that it blends real events with fictional characters so seamlessly that viewers may remember the fiction as history. Fort William Henry and the attack after its surrender were real, but the movie exaggerates the massacre and invents things like Magua killing Monro. The readings also show that Native captivity, diplomacy, and alliances were much more complicated than the movie suggests. So again, I think the movie gets the historical setting better than it gets the specific history. - Todd H.
+During the meeting when it's being discussed where to send Duncan, the comment is made about the British being "American subjects", at the time, the people hadn't been called that, they still saw themselves as British citizens. It also depicts the alliances as something that was just a quick and easy decision but in reality, then were much more in depth and complicated than first appeared. -- Shelby Hawley
+Throughout the film, Magua is deliberately depicted as the “savage” in stark contrast to Hawkeye’s “noble” characterization. Although I do appreciate the centering of Native American (specifically Mohican and Heron) power dynamics in this narrative, it is obvious that the film’s central and compelling conflict relied heavily on the concept of there being a “good native” versus a “bad native.” Truthfully, Magua’s alliance with the French isn't inherently "bad," nor is Chingachgook, Uncas, and Hawkeye’s alignment with the British inherently "good." In reality, both nations (along with numerous others) were choosing their paths strategically to maintain their respective interests and hold leverage against the growing existential threats before them. — Izabella M
 ======How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources (as presented in class)?======
@@ Line 36: / Line 61: @@
 The film deviates significantly from scholarly historical consensus, particularly regarding the Fort William Henry Massacre. While 19th-century sensationalism and Cooper's novel framed the attack as an unrestrained slaughter of thousands while modern scholarship demonstrates that the conflict erupted because Montcalm’s European surrender terms deprived French-allied Indigenous warriors of there promised payment. Scholarly research places the actual death toll much lower (between 40 and 180 people) and confirms that French officers did not encourage the violence, but actively intervened to rescue 400 to 500 British captives. Additionally, the script projects anachronistic Revolutionary ideology backward into the 1750s, placing 1770s anti-monarchical political rhetoric (tyranny and refusing subject status) into the mouths of colonial frontiersmen decades before the American Revolution. The filmmakers also introduced a simplified visual binary by dressing "good" Native allies in full clothing while stripping French-allied warriors down, ignoring shared regional dress, trade networks, and complex tribal geopolitics. - Tyler J.
 ======How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made?======
@@ Line 46: / Line 72: @@
 As a primary source, the movie tells us about America in 1992, not America in 1757. It shows Hollywood trying to give Native Americans more agency and legitimate grievances than older films often did, but it still relies on older stereotypes like the violent warrior and the ‘vanishing Indian.’ It also gives us Hawkeye as a very modern American hero: individualistic, suspicious of authority, and guided by his own moral code. So the film shows a society beginning to reconsider its colonial past without completely escaping older ways of representing it. - Todd H.
+This movie shows the struggle of Hollywood in the 90s with how to depict Native Americans. For example, by casting indigenous actors, the creators of the film make progress by representing a historically trivialized group by members of that group. However, by perpetuating dangerous stereotypes about Native Americans as savage, untrustworthy, and disappearing, the creators perpetuate the racist undertones in discussions of Native Americans from the time.-Kendall
+The Last of the Mohicans works as a primary source because it shows what people in the early 1990s wanted history to feel like—dramatic, emotional, and centered on a rugged, individual hero. The movie reflects the era’s interest in big romantic storylines and “authentic” Native representation, even though it still leans on familiar stereotypes. In that way, it tells you a lot about 1990s attitudes toward identity, heroism, and nostalgia, more than it tells you about the actual 1750s. -Alyssa Gomez
+To me, the film reflects the post-Cold War interest in the romanticization of the “American spirit.” The film’s high-production value, cinematography, and dramatic storytelling places a romantic “love against all odds” story right at the forefront and rolls out a film centered around classic American unity and resilience. While the film’s portrayal of Native American tensions and alliances during the French and Indian war is no doubt lacking, particularly in its reliance on the “noble savage” trope as a storytelling device for the political motivations of an entire group of peoples, there was obviously a conscious effort to shift towards more nuanced portrayals of Indigenous characters and their involvement in history. Although, I think there is something to be said about the characterization of Hawkeye, being a fully white man played by a young Daniel Day-Lewis, and how that narrative decision came off as a bit "white savior-esque" to me, even though he's obviously not being played as such. -- Izabella M
 ======The "So What" Question -- Why should we care about the movie and its version of history?======
+The movie explores epic frontier themes that run deep in America's identity and that have contributed to quintessential American values such individualism and self-reliance. It also nods to the French and Indian War as a seed to the American Revolution. You see this with the colonists anger at British officials for refusing to allow them to leave the fort to defend their homes. The film also relies on longstanding good and evil stereotypes of Native Americans (i.e. the noble vs. dishonorable savage). For example, Magua is portrayed as blood-thirsty and evil, though his actions were likely driven by the injustice of his interaction with the British and other colonists. He explains at one point in the film that the British destroyed his village and his wife, believing he was dead, married another, humiliating this proud man. - Charles S.
 Not only does The Last of the Mohicans garner interest in historical media as a source of information, but as an enjoyable genre, it simultaneously brings to light the French and Indian War as a whole through a digestible lens, engaging a general audience through its musical score—a score that I was particularly fond of while watching this film—compelling characters across both warring factions, and stunning visualizations. If we get to the particulars, this film alters the stereotypical perception of Native Americans portrayed previously in Hollywood media, as it emphasizes the grisly external and internal conflict occurring on both sides of the war. - Bailee E.
@@ Line 60: / Line 95: @@
 We should care about The Last of the Mohicans (1992) and its version of history as not only does it portray the French and Indian War, but also because it does so from a variety of perspectives throughout the film. Being able to see the British, French, Mohawks, settlers, Mohicans, and Hurons and their ideas of war and territory adds a more comprehensive picture of this era for the audience. Although many characters are fictional, this film also humanizes both indigenous and white voices through backstory and motivation through some historical truths. For example, Magua is adamant about fighting the English because they killed his children and likely his wife. Through this film, characters with intricate backgrounds are placed within a historical context that makes the audience engage and reflect on the real and nuanced people who actually lived during this era. - Aaliyah A.
+Despite the historical inaccuracies and creative liberties, this movie is important to expose the masses to an often-ignored component of American history. In the history taught to school age children it seems like we skip from the American Revolution to the Civil War, completely passing over significant events like the French and Indian War. Additionally, the movie features Native Americans who are often erased from the narrative of popularized US history.  – Kendall
+We should care about this version of history because even though the maker of this story did not use a reliable source for the Indians, he still gave us a very good depiction of what may have happened. I care about this movie not just because of the brutality of the war but for the overall empowerment to survive as well as to fight the people that you care about. The main character's story could have aligned closely to the real people that lived during this detrimental time. This war was about fighting for land. The British wanted to push the borders of their land west while the Indians were just trying to save their homeland from being taken over. I love how you can see the brutal resentment that the Indians have for the British especially in the film. Although it is gory, their need for attacking the British is valid. I wish it hadn't been so grotesque but that is why the film's version of this piece of history is so good. So what if some people don't care about this point in time of early Americans' past? The Last of the Mohicans is raw insight and I learned so much about the French and Indian war.
+-- Autumn Morris