Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2026

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2026 [2026/09/24 06:22] – [How does this movie work as a secondary source about the past? What does the movie get right about history?] 76.78.172.29329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2026 [2026/09/29 13:32] (current) – 199.111.65.35
Line 26: Line 26:
  
 ======Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?====== ======Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?======
 +
 +One of the most egregious inaccuracies in the film that I feel gets overlooked is the depiction of the British as having ambitions for native american land after the war and even carving up territory for the characters of Gen. Cornwallis and Col. Tavington. Maybe, these supposedly “loyal” British subjects should’ve known about the Proclamation of 1763 which explicitly forbade colonial settlement west of the Appalachians. In fact, this decision served as one of the main catalysts for the American Revolution just as much as “no taxation without representation” as one of the main reasons people, young and poor males especially, would come to America was an opportunity to seek out land that they could call their own and develop through hard work, the origins of the “American dream.” That actually sounds a lot like Benjamin Martin’s character, but somehow it's the British and loyalists who are the ones eyeing up Indian land. - Charles Salcedo
 +
 The Patriot is a very idealistic portrayal of the American Revolution in the south. It was basically an action movie. The biggest inaccuracy I saw in the movie was the portrayal of Black Americans. Benjamin Martin did not own slaves, they were freedmen who worked by their own decision. Nor did his sister in law, I presume, given that their former workers provided them refuge after the British came for Martin’s family. Even though both of them owned plantations in the south. There was a nice appearance of what I assume were the Gullah people, who provided the Martin family and Charlotte with refuge and care. The one slave that earned his freedom by fighting with Martin was apparently slowly accepted by his white colleagues and was just fine with his treatment once they became nice to him. The Patriot was just an objectively bad representation of black Americans in the south and during the revolutionary war. Although the exaggerations done here weren’t unlike other decisions made in the movie. -Katie D. The Patriot is a very idealistic portrayal of the American Revolution in the south. It was basically an action movie. The biggest inaccuracy I saw in the movie was the portrayal of Black Americans. Benjamin Martin did not own slaves, they were freedmen who worked by their own decision. Nor did his sister in law, I presume, given that their former workers provided them refuge after the British came for Martin’s family. Even though both of them owned plantations in the south. There was a nice appearance of what I assume were the Gullah people, who provided the Martin family and Charlotte with refuge and care. The one slave that earned his freedom by fighting with Martin was apparently slowly accepted by his white colleagues and was just fine with his treatment once they became nice to him. The Patriot was just an objectively bad representation of black Americans in the south and during the revolutionary war. Although the exaggerations done here weren’t unlike other decisions made in the movie. -Katie D.
  
Line 40: Line 43:
  
 As I’ve stated previously, the film could have done much more to show the dangerous nature of marooned communities and the agency of those who built them, along with the heavily problematic depiction of the agendas and motivations of their Black characters as a whole. The film’s ending in particular, with the character of Occam giving his life to fight for the chance of freedom, immediately returning to the plantation and happily welcoming the family’s return, just rubbed me the wrong way. It portrayed the state of the Black population and equal to the White population and gave off a sense of wonder and optimism at what is to come in the future, which is just wrong in so many ways. The film missed a significant opportunity to accurately reflect the lived realities of Black Americans during the Revolutionary era and the fight against oppression that is in many ways still ongoing (especially in the late 90s and early 2000s when this film was released). Ultimately, the portrayal remains more of a cinematic backdrop than a true exploration of the historical significance and struggle of the Black community. -  Izabella M As I’ve stated previously, the film could have done much more to show the dangerous nature of marooned communities and the agency of those who built them, along with the heavily problematic depiction of the agendas and motivations of their Black characters as a whole. The film’s ending in particular, with the character of Occam giving his life to fight for the chance of freedom, immediately returning to the plantation and happily welcoming the family’s return, just rubbed me the wrong way. It portrayed the state of the Black population and equal to the White population and gave off a sense of wonder and optimism at what is to come in the future, which is just wrong in so many ways. The film missed a significant opportunity to accurately reflect the lived realities of Black Americans during the Revolutionary era and the fight against oppression that is in many ways still ongoing (especially in the late 90s and early 2000s when this film was released). Ultimately, the portrayal remains more of a cinematic backdrop than a true exploration of the historical significance and struggle of the Black community. -  Izabella M
 +
 +Despite the film’s significant depiction of the free black population of South Carolina, which only numbered in the few thousands, the film leaves many other groups that existed in the colony with little to no representation. Both the enslaved population of South Carolina and openly loyalist population are depicted each only by one character, the enslaved man Occam (played by actor Jay Arlen Jones) who served in Martin’s militia and Captain James Wilkins (played by Adam Baldwin) who was Colonel Tavington’s second-in-command. Meanwhile, not a single Native American character in depicted in the film and the only mentions to Native Americans at all in the film revolves around the backstory of the main character Benjamin Martin, his slaughter of Native Americans in the French and Indian War being the catalyst for why Martin would want to avoid another war this time coming to his doorstep. This reflects the film's desire to avoid the complexities of certain populations that could give a bad impression of the patriot cause, given how reality shows that loyalists and Native Americans were sizable minorities, certainly greater than the population of free blacks, in British North America and the enslaved population in South Carolina was actually the majority within the colony. - Charles Salcedo
  
 ======How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources (as presented in class)?====== ======How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources (as presented in class)?======
Line 47: Line 52:
 Colonial America went through many trials as well as wars to get us where we are today. I think what we learned in class follows along pretty well with the film's interpretations. We started off with the seven years war as well as the French and Indian war in the 1750s through the early 1760s. This is likely when Ben first fought battles and learned how to fight. He recalls many times to his son Gabrial in the film about how he murdered Indians and sent their body parts back to their tribes. This gives you the sense of how brutal that war was and why Ben doesn't want to start or be in another war in the start of the film. We go further along the line and talk about how of course the British won the war but levied a heavy tax on the colonists in America. This led to the stamp act and the Townsend act. Naturally this angered a lot of people and made them want to create their own nation separate from England. This starts the revolutionary war and against Ben's better judgement, his eldest son enlists in the continental army to fight for the cause. At the time there were more enslaved people in America than there were not so they got pulled to fight in the war for both sides. They are told that if they fight then they will gain their freedom. We see this in the film when Ben’s “freed” slaves are taken by the British.-- Autumn. M Colonial America went through many trials as well as wars to get us where we are today. I think what we learned in class follows along pretty well with the film's interpretations. We started off with the seven years war as well as the French and Indian war in the 1750s through the early 1760s. This is likely when Ben first fought battles and learned how to fight. He recalls many times to his son Gabrial in the film about how he murdered Indians and sent their body parts back to their tribes. This gives you the sense of how brutal that war was and why Ben doesn't want to start or be in another war in the start of the film. We go further along the line and talk about how of course the British won the war but levied a heavy tax on the colonists in America. This led to the stamp act and the Townsend act. Naturally this angered a lot of people and made them want to create their own nation separate from England. This starts the revolutionary war and against Ben's better judgement, his eldest son enlists in the continental army to fight for the cause. At the time there were more enslaved people in America than there were not so they got pulled to fight in the war for both sides. They are told that if they fight then they will gain their freedom. We see this in the film when Ben’s “freed” slaves are taken by the British.-- Autumn. M
  
 +The Patriot showcases the American Revolution in a way that is better read as an interpretation than a source on how the events depicted actually took place. The film uses the American Revolution as a backdrop to a plot based on drama and revenge, making entertainment more important than accuracy. The interaction between white colonists and African Americans specifically is purposefully ignorant of the actual climate of the time. Benjamin Martin is presented as a perfect hero and slavery is wholly ignored, instead the black people who work on his family's plantation are introduced as unpaid workers. The way the plot is written, refusing to acknowledge the reality of slavery is a requirement to how the film-makers offer the character forward to the audience.
 +-Leah B.
  
 ======How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made?====== ======How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made?======
 +
 +In the U.S., the 1990s and the early 2000s were very much a time drenched in nationalistic ideals and patriotism. Hollywood was producing constant films that further impassioned this rhetoric, often having clear and simple good vs bad characters and dramatically heroic narratives. In this film there were also themes of protecting one's home and family in the face of frankly cartoonishly evil violence, which was another common theme of movies during this time. Heavy elements of racial sanitization and fear of broaching controversial topics involving our country's flawed history also pervade the film's storyline, as the protagonist is shown to be a southern plantation owner who very uniquely doesn't have slaves working his fields but instead paid freedmen. The film is very clearly refusing to acknowledge the fact that the rich and middle-class white colonists who historically fought for American independence against the violent and despicable British empire were very often violent and despicable in their own right. Such an admittance to this fact would go against the overall themes of clear good vs evil and the encouragement of thoughtless nationalism, so it was omitted. 
  
 The 2000s are rather famously known for their major displays of American Exceptionalism in the lead-up to the Post-9/11 conflict in Afghanistan, aptly dubbed the "War on Terror"; films catered to that foundational cultural pride and related martial agenda. This is ably reflected in Roland Emmerich's The Patriot (2000), as it depicts the very genesis of the United States of America, its formation, and the correlated militaristic forces American citizens coveted in the 2000s period. It practically functions as a love letter to the American people's national pride. -Bailee Eberenz The 2000s are rather famously known for their major displays of American Exceptionalism in the lead-up to the Post-9/11 conflict in Afghanistan, aptly dubbed the "War on Terror"; films catered to that foundational cultural pride and related martial agenda. This is ably reflected in Roland Emmerich's The Patriot (2000), as it depicts the very genesis of the United States of America, its formation, and the correlated militaristic forces American citizens coveted in the 2000s period. It practically functions as a love letter to the American people's national pride. -Bailee Eberenz
Line 66: Line 75:
 ======The "So What" Question -- Why should we care about the movie and its version of history?====== ======The "So What" Question -- Why should we care about the movie and its version of history?======
 The Patriot is one of the few movies I would say historical inaccuracy does not matter that much, if you have knowledge of the American Revolution and can recognize the cartoonish characters. From my understanding, this movie was extremely popular which means it has left a massive impression on a wide audience. But the movie is basically one big action scene, all hinging on one guy’s revenge, with a cartoonishly evil British Officer. While there are definitely problematic representations in the movie, the movie is very obviously not accurate to history, nor is it trying to be. It's an action movie that so happens to be set in the 1790s. -Katie D. The Patriot is one of the few movies I would say historical inaccuracy does not matter that much, if you have knowledge of the American Revolution and can recognize the cartoonish characters. From my understanding, this movie was extremely popular which means it has left a massive impression on a wide audience. But the movie is basically one big action scene, all hinging on one guy’s revenge, with a cartoonishly evil British Officer. While there are definitely problematic representations in the movie, the movie is very obviously not accurate to history, nor is it trying to be. It's an action movie that so happens to be set in the 1790s. -Katie D.
 +
 +The film is important to view and study as both a primary and secondary source. It has legitimate merit in its historical accuracy, albeit still flawed in its retelling since it is still merely a fictional drama meant for entertainment purposes. It illustrates quite well some of the more brutal aspects involved in the fight for American independence, and also the British’s perspective of the colonists. Fighting tactics and military operations were also often well represented. The film is also notably saturated in 1990s/early 2000s American political ideals. There was obviously quite a lot of effort put into the production of this film. And despite its shortcomings and rather disappointing sanitization of racial issues, as someone who doesn’t typically enjoy war films, I still think this is generally a good movie with good storytelling value. - Leo Tooks
  
 I think the fact that this movie heavily shallows out the history of slavery and racism in South Carolina is a really important discussion that makes this movie important to look at today in 2026. We discussed a bit in class on Tuesday about how this was likely done to maintain the "good guy" image of Benjamin Martin and the overall desire to enforce moral clarity, which was important to American society in the 1990s-2000s. However, we can understand today that that nuance and complexity is necessary to understanding the history of the American South. It also adds to our overall discussion we've been having throughout the course about how, what, and why movie makers sacrifice certain historical details in films and whether or not that's significant enough for us to be ok or not ok with. I think this movie makes us think about manhood or the American version of manhood and how that has changed over time, what kinds of qualities or actions do Americans value in men, and how that's portrayed or carried on to modern audiences. -- Grayson D.  I think the fact that this movie heavily shallows out the history of slavery and racism in South Carolina is a really important discussion that makes this movie important to look at today in 2026. We discussed a bit in class on Tuesday about how this was likely done to maintain the "good guy" image of Benjamin Martin and the overall desire to enforce moral clarity, which was important to American society in the 1990s-2000s. However, we can understand today that that nuance and complexity is necessary to understanding the history of the American South. It also adds to our overall discussion we've been having throughout the course about how, what, and why movie makers sacrifice certain historical details in films and whether or not that's significant enough for us to be ok or not ok with. I think this movie makes us think about manhood or the American version of manhood and how that has changed over time, what kinds of qualities or actions do Americans value in men, and how that's portrayed or carried on to modern audiences. -- Grayson D. 
329/question/329--week_4_questions_comments-2026.1790230930.txt.gz · Last modified: by 76.78.172.29