Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_6_questions_comments-2022 [2022/10/03 17:58] – [V. The "So, what?" question] 174.216.161.199
+++ 329:question:329--week_6_questions_comments-2022 [2024/10/03 04:03] (current) – lbicknel
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 I think that the way the movie portrayed how the women were left at home when all of the men went to fight in the war was very accurate. It did a great job of showing how these wealthy, white women who were only ever used to their enslaved workers taking care of their homes, meals, and themselves were now left alone to fend for themselves, but also to take care of others. Scarlett O’Hara went from a spoiled, wealthy woman to having to deliver babies and take care of her home plantation Tara. I also liked when the Union soldiers were coming to Atlanta and Scarlett, Prissy, and Melanie were fleeing, Scarlett’s hair and dress were no longer glamorous and put together. The disarray of her appearance did a great job of reflecting the hardships and difficulties of war time. If Scarlett had looked put together and cleaned the entire time, it definitely would not be accurately reflecting history. Scarlett’s objection to working in the hospital in Atlanta demonstrated her inability and lack of knowledge of taking care of others and being able to work. --Olivia Foster
+I don’t believe this movie would be a great secondary source, but it did get some details right about history. The treatment of women seemed historically accurate. Men saw women as dependents and fragile. Scarlet was blamed for being attacked when she left by herself on a carriage because she didn't have a man with her. She was also blamed for the death of her second husband, Kennedy, because he went out looking for the men who attacked her and got shot. Women also only really worked on their homes or as nurses, which Scarlett was doing while the soldiers got hurt. -Leah B.
 I do not think this movie works as a secondary source. At least in the way of being historically dependent and not having a bias towards it. I do think the movie could work as a gain in perspective though. I feel that there could have been many different perspectives of the fear the War can cause them while others believe it had nothing to do with the. The individuals in the movie refuse to take notice in the War while the others are more than ever to fight. I also think the movie did a decent job in showing how women had to take over when the men left for the war. Did it do a great job? No not necessarily but it helps spark a conversation of the role women did in the War. Another thing would have to be the dynamic between the enslaved people and their “masters”.  Their dynamic was buffered about what actually occurred with them. - Paula Perez
@@ Line 33: / Line 36: @@
 Both the class lecture and readings spoke in depth on how many enslaved peoples began to leave once the war started, taking advantage of the chaos, and if they didn't leave, they demanded better treatment at least. One of the more significant points of this was that after all enslaved people were formerly freed at the end of the war, none stayed with their original masters. The South had a huge shock when they saw that their former slaves had not been happy and were not willing to remain and labor for them out of loyalty - something this film does not touch on, as the characters of Mammy and Pork stay of their own free will, happily, even as the character of Scarlett treats them so poorly. -- Jane Michael
+The way this film portrays slavery is extremely unrealistic. They would receive harsh punishments for small mistakes. In the movie, they were forgiven unless they had done very wrong. The film portrayed African Americans as incompetent. They also portrayed slaves as very loyal to their owners. For example, after the civil war, Mammy seemed to have enjoyed staying with Scarlett, and didn’t receive too harsh of a punishment after disagreeing with her marriage to Rhett. After calling them donkeys or something of the sort, Scarlet just didn’t want to give her a present for Christmas. This was extremely inaccurate for the time as slaves received very harsh punishments for their actions. -Leah B.
 This movie depicts slavery completely differently from the reality. It paints the domestic enslaved people as lazy and stupid, as if they would not have been severely reprimanded for talking back, not completing their work, or wasting time. They are also always happy to see the white characters, and generally seem happy with their situation. This fully feeds into the belief that enslaved people did not want to be free and enjoyed being enslaved. Having the white characters believe that would not have been incorrect to historical interpretations, but portraying the African Americans like that is incredibly harmful. This movie feeds into many stereotypes about Black people that existed in the 1860s, still existed in the 1930s, and were perpetuated when this movie came out among generations that have watched since, even if subconsciously. Even though Scarlett is criticized for being harsh a couple times, even that is sanitized. The romanticism of the “good old days” in the South, especially Ashley’s line about the sweet singing of enslaved people, are completely incorrect in portraying a nice, happy vision of a world that was really full of terror and brutality.  — Sasha Poletes