Page locked

This page is currently locked for editing by another user. You have to wait until this user finishes editing or the lock expires.
Currently locked by: 216.73.216.141
Lock expires at: 2025/08/26 16:11 (11 min)
This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week.  You do not need to post to all areas. Please do include links to sources, clips, images that are relevant to your point. -- Dr. McClurken
====== I.	How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?  ======
As a secondary source I believe this movie did well when compared to last weeks Pocahontas. Due to the nature of it being a Hollywood movie made about a fictional book, we can’t say it’s truly accurate. Probably fall from it, but it does a better job at being closer to the real deal. At least there are no talking trees. 
I think that the movie definitely touched on the kidnapping/adoption within the tribes. While the main character was adopted versus kidnapping, it still showed the presence of those scenarios within the native culture.

Sincerely, 
Michaela Fontenot 





The film's depiction of the siege of Fort William Henry is surprisingly accurate. While I did not find any mention of colonial forces desertion, (this is all just from Wikipedia… sorry), the rest of the siege seemed pretty accurate. The British held fort was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel George Monro. It had a small garrison of British soldiers and colonial militia. The Fort was besieged by French General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm. It lasted several days, with French forces digging trenches in order to bring their artillery closer to the fort. In the film we see this happening, and it is related in Monro’s line “The situation is his guns are bigger than mine and he has more of them. We keep our heads down while his troupes dig thirty yards of trench a day. Once those trenches are two hundred yards from the fort and within range, he’ll bring in his fifteen-inch mortars, lob explosive rounds over our walls and burn us to dust.” (0:41:26). 
This is essentially what happened. As in the film, Monro set messages for help to Brigadier General Daniel Webb for help. Webb at the time was feeling threatened by another French force and deemed it unwise to send a large contingent of his force away to relieve Monro. Webb advised Monro to surrender, his letter was intercepted by the French and presented to Monro after a couple of days of heavy bombardment. Monro surrendered. The only major difference I spotted was that in the movie the Monro’s English forces were compelled to leave America and not engage in anymore fighting on the continent. In actuality they were allowed to keep all their muskets and one ceremonial cannon (but no ammo), and had to swear not to fight for the next 18 months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_William_Henry 
-Lucca Crowe.

As a secondary source, it is okay. There are some accurate parts in the film that would have occurred during this time but it was very dramatized and focused more on the white story then the Native. The movie follows the character Hawkeye who is the adopted son of the Mohawk tribe. Natives used to take captives and adopt the children into their culture and make them their own. Hawkeye talks about how he knows English due to him being sent to a Christian school. As more Europeans came over, more Christian schools opened and it became common for Native Americans to attend them. The fighting strategies the British used in this film were accurate. They would line up and stay in one spot to shoot their enemies. During the French and Indian War, the French had more native allies and that is shown in the film. Shows how much the Natives began to rely on the Europeans for goods. -Sophie Weber

One thing that was historically accurate, and thus allows the movie to somewhat work as a secondary source, was Magua’s wish to kill Colonel Monro’s daughters as revenge for Col. Monro killing his children. According A Captive with Abenakis, it was typical of Native Americans that were mourning the loss of family members to want either French or English captives to be tortured to death as a form of revenge for their lost loved ones. Therefore, Magua seeking revenge by killing English people was historically accurate, however, Native Americans typically respected the women they captured -Teresa Felipe

Something that I noticed immediately when watching this movie was the attitudes of the settlers to the British crown. During the Seven Years’ War, colonists in America saw themselves as British citizens still. They believed themselves to be citizens of England, but just in its colonies. However, the settlers in the film generally view the British with contempt. They do not want to fight in the war for the British and even say that the French are their (the British) enemy, not theirs. Whether this choice was made by the director or James Fenimore Cooper, the author of the original novel, I don’t know. Regardless, I think this choice was made to retroactively carve out an American identity that did not exist at the time the story takes place. It feels almost as if the story at times is setting the stage for the American Revolution, though that is not the main focus of it. Natty Bumpo is supposed to be, in this way, the ideal American: neither settler nor native, but a third, unique identity that is both “civilized” and “wild”. - Maris Tiller

Some aspects of the film that I found to work as a secondary source were the depictions of the colonists and how they acted, especially in their battle strategies. It was quite historically accurate for the time period to line up across from each other and shoot. Whereas you saw the Native Americans that were assisting with the French using less European style tactics, which are more historically accurate for them. The general attitude of the “I am white, so I am better” was also seen throughout the film, which is a sentiment that carries over even to today but is especially true for many of the settlers. -Margaret Jones

The line "British policy is to 'make the world England'." is completely accurate because England tried to do that to as much of the world as it could during the following centuries. Another accurate line I liked was from 53:05-53:13 where one on the side characters says that he'd rather leave then stay under tyranny. This is a good acknowledgement that the Seven Years War would kick off some of the tensions that caused the American Revolution. -Katherine Rayhart

This film is not a terrible secondary source, as it does do a good job with some aspects of history. I think that its best quality is its cinematography and the landscape featured, as this was very accurate for the time. I found this article/snapshots from the film that I found interesting to consider, and it gives insight into the attention to detail that Michael Mann had while shooting ( http://sociallearningcommunity.com/last-of-the-mohicans/ ). Of course, the movie is fiction, so it cannot be taken too seriously in a historical context. It also puts forth extreme Native American stereotypes, so nothing remotely related to them should be used in a scholarly setting. However, it does a fine job in a secondary role, with the battles, outfits, equipment, and overall theme being accurate. -Burke Steifman

As a secondary source, this movie seems to do an okay job. The portrayal of Native Americans seems to be one of the best I can think of in the present day. While Magua was still made out as the villain in the end, the rest of the movie did a decent job at not stereotyping and generalizing natives, which is the absolute least this movie could have done. Although they did make the white man who “became,” in a VERY loose sense, a native the main character, there is evidence that female and young colonists would be integrated into a tribe. I don’t think that the inclusion of Hawkeye was wrong, but they could have made an actual native the main character instead. The war parts also seemed mostly accurate for a movie. The siege of Fort William Henry was well done from what we learned in class. As a start for learning about the French and Indian War, this is decent. -Sarah Moore 

One thing that the Last of the Mohicans gets right is the common distrust, disgust, and hate between the English and the Native Americans. The Native Americans, especially the 'villain' Magua, carry a common belief of greed and selfishness, as shown in a quote by Magua, "God gave him enough, and yet he wants all. Such are the pale-faces." However, the English share common bigotry towards the Native Americans, as shown in a quote by one of the English scouts, in which the scout calls the Hurons a 'thieving race,' who are nothing more than 'skulks and vagabonds.' This is quite accurate with the time period; the Native Americans were either viewed as noble or ignoble savages. In the case of the Last of the Mohicans, the noble savages are with the Delaware Uncas and the ignoble savages are with Magua's Hurons. http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nattrans/ntecoindian/essays/indimage.html - Zack Steinbaum

The view of the colonists seemed accurate as it portrayed them as both loyal to the English crown but also vested in their own interests, since they wanted to both fight on England’s side and still protect their own families. I think the juxtaposition the film created between the posh looking british officers and the rugged colonists was interesting, but I did pick up on the fact that the colonists all had clear american accents, and I don’t know how much difference in accents the two groups would have had at that point. One thing I was curious about was the whole plot surrounding Munro not honoring the promise of his superior of letting the colonists leave — would the real Munro have disobeyed a direct order or was this done to further plot so that Hawkeye could be charged with sedition? — Sasha Poletes



====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
Considering that the movie is based off a fiction book written by a man who never even saw nor met a native American, they did good. Production was very elegant, and well thought out. It left room for in-depth conversation about the topic.  I think the killing of the family in the log cabin is far fetched, as was mentioned in the reading,:” Many women and children were taken to be adopted.” (A Captive With the Abernakis. Meaning that it would’ve been rare for anyone to have been seriously maimed or killed. Like it or not, these people became family. They wouldn’t hurt their family unless needed. 





A more inaccurate portion of the history displayed in the film was its portrayal of the massacre following the Siege of Fort William Henry. In the film, the massacre is portrayed as a planned assault extremely reminiscent of the Roman ambush at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. English forces march in order out of Fort William Henry. They are then surprised in the forest with no forewarning or expectation of attack. The battle is quick, brutal, and enacted with the winking support of French officers. The real massacre, (according to Wikipedia… again I'm sorry), was much more drawn out and probably extremely predictable. While some French officers did turn the other eye, the nature of the massacre could be argued to have been a result of poor communications within the French and Native American force. the native forces allied with the French were of an extremely diverse nature. They spoke a myriad of different languages, many of which were not spoken by a single European on the field. So the question can be raised whether or not the French native allies even knew what was going on and that they were supposed to avoid killing the English all of a sudden. After the surrender, the English forces made camp in the French camp, French allied native forces immediately entered the Fort and killed sick and wounded soldiers that had been left behind. Seeing the native bloodlust, both English and French commanders decided it might be smart to move the English out during the night, but native forces caught on to this and the departure was moved to dawn. Throughout the rest of the day English forces continue to be harassed by native warriors, with weapons, clothing, and people being snatched away. As the last British soldiers left the French encampment, the fight began as native warriors attacked the back of the line. Order collapsed and people ran. Estimates as to how many people died range wildly from 200 to 1500. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_William_Henry -Lucca Crowe.

This movie really does not seem accurate to what would have occurred during the Seven Years War. Native Americans considered women to have value and strength and regarded them as such. I’m not sure if this was due to Maugua having to interact with white women or he was starting to take on European ideas of women, but he regarded them as lower than the men and like they needed the men to support them. Many of the native Americans remained neutral during the war but this movie portrays it like every native person chose a side and was fighting. Though the native people relied on the British and French, many did remain neutral from the fighting. Every time the native Americans move, they have to make sounds which do not seem accurate. Another factor is when the native Americans run. It is the same as in Pocahontas where they are more skipping/running. Also like in Pocahontas, the chief seems to be portrayed as this all knowing mystical figure. -Sophie Weber

One thing that the movie got wrong was the massacre while the British were retreating from Fort William Henry. First of all, according to the Penn Museum website, the British were under a French armed guard during their retreat to Fort Edward; in the movie there was no such guard. Furthermore, the reasoning most modern historians point to for the massacre is that the Native American allies of Montcalm were promised scalps and loot, however, the terms of surrender that Montcalm and Monro agreed upon prevented this. The reasoning for the massacre given in the movie was because Montcalm did not wish to fight the same men again so he gave Magua the green light to attack and kill the British. https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/the-massacre-at-fort-william-henry/ -Teresa Felipe

One thing that the readings addressed was the common event of Native Americans taking women and children and generally treating them well to be "adopted" into the tribe because of their declining numbers. It was a very fleeting scene but it seemed odd to me, especially knowing this fact, that the couple that had been living in the house on the frontier that was burned - the Camerons - had both been killed in the raid. The woman was shown on the ground and it was alluded that the man was dead under the rubble, and the child was simply not mentioned as far as I could see. It was a very minute detail, but it seems like it would have made more sense in the historical context if the mother and child had been taken, especially since the two daughters of Munro, who arguably had a lot more reasons to be revenge killed, were left alive and Alice was given to the Huron. -- Jane Michael

This is going to be nitpicky, but it annoyed me. Cora and her sister have clothes from the wrong decade. Their silhouettes are 1760's silhouettes, not 1750's silhouettes. Tldr: skirts in the 1750s were pretty wide whereas 1760s skirts had a narrower silhouette. I found 3 articles that help support this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1750%E2%80%931775_in_Western_fashion, https://bellatory.com/fashion-industry/Womens-Fashions-of-the-1700s, & https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1750-1759/. I'm not sure if the men's clothing was from the 1750's or not. -Katherine Rayhart

The film does do well in some regard to historical accuracy, but it also does take some liberties with the story for fictional purposes. In the massacre following the British surrender at Fort Henry, the way that scene played out is not accurate. The rear of the British surrender march was the ones attacked, while the others had their clothes stolen amongst other things (Siege of Fort William Henry - Wikipedia). In the film, the entirety of the march is attacked. French officers, including Montcalm, tried to stop the attack; however, in the film they are not seen at all. Another inaccuracy is the death of Munro. Munro did not die in the massacre, but months later in Albany (George Monro (British Army officer) - Wikipedia). Earlier in the film, the attitudes of the colonists do not match with the historical record. In the film, they resent the Crown almost, not wanting to fight it. However, the way that British officers like Munro and Heyward view the colonists does line up with the historical record (as mentioned on class on Tuesday). Munro in the film does not even want to hear what the colonists have to say because he does not trust them as much as a British officer. - Taylor Coleman

====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======

It seems like the film writers may have used scholarly sources for facts and information, but this film was made more for entertainment than education. This film looks at the attack on Fort William Henry and its aftermath during the Seven Years War. Even though this is the main part, it is very focused on the romance between Hawkeye and Cora instead of the war. The film looks at it from the British perspective and makes the French and Natives look bad. Due to the main character being white instead of native american, it forces watchers to see the role of natives in the context of white men. It also gives the idea that the Natives are cruel and mean unless they have a white man in with them. It seemed like the colonists were there to make the British soldiers look better and played a minuscule part in the film even though they played a big part in the war as militiamen. They were portrayed as if they had no power and needed the Native Americans to advocate for them. As this film follows an adopted Native American which it was common for Natives to adopt white children as their own but it makes it seem like it was more prevalent then it actually was. -Sophie Weber

Aside from the obvious unnecessary and historically inaccurate romance plot of the movie, the main character Hawkeye/Nathaniel felt like an excuse to have a dark, brooding, loner white man be the main hero in this story about the French and Indian War. Nathaniel’s parents died when he was a young child, and was adopted by Chingachgook of the Mohican people. The fact that James Fenimoore Cooper created this fictitious character in 1826 and placed him in a real historical event, says a lot to me about Cooper himself and the audience he was writing to at the time. The 1992 movie adaptation continues Cooper’s narrative and by placing a white man, instead of a Native American man, as the main hero of the story, the movie becomes more relatable to a wider audience. The creative choice to have Nathaniel be the fictitious lead rather than an actual Native American man is very annoying to watch as a 2022 audience member and a history student. I wonder if a real-life person similar to Nathaniel ever did exist, or if this was just a white person fantasy of pretending to be a Native American without the baggage of racial discrimination and genocide. --Olivia Foster

The film’s interpretation of the French and Indian War seemed skewed. The number of natives fighting in the movie made it seem as if this was largely their fight with the French and British just directing them around. However, this was certainly not the case. There is proof that natives had planned to stay out of the war and that many, even after the war had encroached on their homes, only fought when necessary to protect themselves. So if this movie had truly been going for accuracy, there should have been a larger presence of the French and the British in regards to military actions. Also, this war caused about 5,000 deaths, but a very large number of the deaths in this movie were natives, which does not match up with this number. The largest amount of deaths should be attributed to the French and British. https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/native-history-french-and-indian-war-ends-with-treaty-of-paris       -Sarah Moore 

The Last of the Mohicans is a work of fiction - aside from the siege of Fort William Henry - and it proves this with the personality and character of Cora Munro, one of Colonel Munro’s daughters. Cora Munro in this film is portrayed as a strong, independent female willing to stand up to her male counterparts. This is shown in her interaction with her father:
//Cora Munro//: “Justice? If that's justice then the sooner French guns blow the English out of America the better it will be for the people here.”
//Colonel Munro//: “You do not know what you're saying!”
//Cora Munro//: “Yes I do, I know exactly what I'm saying! And if it is sedition, then I am guilty of sedition too.”
This form of independence is shown in women in more modern times but not in 18th century women, who are typically more domestic and dependent. https://www.grin.com/document/75519 - Zack Steinbaum

====== IV.	How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======

As a primary source for the time it was made, this movie displays many stereotypes about Native Americans, especially with the makeup, costuming, and behavioral choices - I noticed that a good amount of Native Americans, especially the Hurons, were always shirtless to display tattoos, while Nathaniel was always fully clothed and depicted more as a white man with more dignity, despite the fact that his character was raised as a Mohican since he was 2 or 3. Obviously there was some research done and some Native actors hired, but not enough to avoid playing into the stereotypes. This probably makes sense as the book that it was based on basically created the stereotype, but the hunting scenes and the seemingly arbitrary switch between English and Native languages in conversations between the Mohicans felt a little off and clearly displayed the stereotypes that the filmmakers felt would sell the best. -- Jane Michael

It’s hard to view the film itself as a primary source since it is an adaptation of a book. Likely there were changes made from the original text, but I presume that similar themes are in both works. The fact that Cooper’s novel is still treasured and adapted for the screen as recently as the 1990s is a testament to how we still view the history of this country. Particularly, we can look at the story as a wider representation of how we view Native Americans in the scope of U.S. history. There are three main native characters in this film; two are implied, by virtue of having speaking roles, to be “good” ones. The third character, Magua, is unambiguously evil in the events of the film. Besides that, all other native roles in the film are given to roving bands of attackers and kidnappers who are never really given motivation for their actions. In one scene, the Hurons are shown burning someone at the stake. Magua is the only one given a reason for his treachery, that being cruelty inflicted upon him by the whites. He is portrayed as ignorant and violent, unlike the good Chingachgook and Uncas, who help the white people to the point of sacrifice. The film indulges in a kind of “noble savage” trope that we also see in Pocahontas (1995), which I am inclined to believe is a problem more with the source material than the film itself. However, the film does end up engaging in these stereotypes, so I think it’s fair to say that it has had some role in spreading this false information about American history. - Maris Tiller

This movie works well as a primary source about the time it was made, as it displays very basic stereotypes about Native Americans. One that I picked up on early and that continued throughout was the hostility/violent nature of the Native Americans. This is a very harmful stereotype that goes into the use of “savages” to refer to Native Americans. This basically infers that a core part of their being is killing and being destructive, while in reality most Native Americans were doing what they needed to do to survive. This stereotype is extremely harmful but also very prevalent, so in this portrayal of Native Americans, it gives a good insight into what people at the time thought of Native Americans and the way that they would’ve/do act. -Margaret Jones

This film would be a solid primary source about the time it was made, as it still contains the stereotypical and offensive tropes of Native Americans. In 1992, the leap to making content accurate and non-stereotypical had not happened, and these unrealistic portrayals of minorities was still common. If someone was to write about the films of the 90’s and their stereotypes, I think that this would be the perfect film to include, along with last week’s Pocahontas. Any film that portrays the Natives as the villains is guilty of promoting unreliable history, especially when the Natives are portrayed so violent that they will literally cut out the heart of an enemy. I took a look at a list of the “Top 50 most racist movies” made by Complex and found that almost all of them are from the late 80’s or 90’s (https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/05/the-50-most-racist-movies/). While The Last of the Mohicans did not happen to be on it, the list does say a lot about this movie and where the film industry was at the time it was made. -Burke Steifman

On Burke's note, I agree that this movie has a brutal portrayal of Native Americans. it is evident that a lot of care went into this film, even if it’s very dramatized. The dress seemed accurate, and the movie actually won an Academy Award for sound design as it seemed like realistic musket noises and everything. However, it was still guilty of promoting a "savage" portrayal of Native Americans as the enemy, and deciding to demonize the Native Americans that sided against the British instead of giving any insight or sympathy to those on the other side of the conflict. Similarly to what has already been said by Jane, Nathaniel still has a sense of separation as he is more modestly dressed. I just wonder why the Mann has chosen to create a new adaptation of a movie that has been adapted since 1920 instead of choosing a more innovative, respectful approach rather than an already problematic story. I have tried to do research but have not been able to find anything

====== V. The "So, what?" question	======

Ultimately, my thoughts on the film, and the protagonist Nathanial in particular, are mixed. On the one hand, it is perfectly historically accurate for a white man to have been raised by Native Americans and naturalized into their family and culture. Additionally, the character and story told in the film come from the novels of James Fenimore Cooper. It still rankles me, however, that in a story about a native man falling in love with an English woman, the native man must be played by a white actor. Of course, the argument can be made that this was the nature of the story in the original novel being adapted, that the residual racism inherent in the story is simply part of adapting a novel from the 1800s. To this I answer, why did we have to adapt this story then? The most interesting aspects of the film relate to real historical events, why not simply adapt those historical events per se, rather than relying on a racist story written in the 1800s. The relationship between Nathanial and Cora only begins when Cora discovers Nathaniel has a Christian name, (after which she realizes she wants to do good Christian things to him). (yes, I have a lot of feelings about the way that romance was developed and how it derailed the rest of the plot, but as that is not a historical criticism, I will let it be). This film was released in 1992, and its refusal to depict a biracial relationship speaks more to the time in which it was created rather than the historic time period it is supposed to depict, or the period in which the book was written. I do not know enough about the racial politics of the early 1990s to speak with any degree of authority on this matter, but this question on the matter of inter-racial relations did strike me as noteworthy. -Lucca Crowe.

I also do not know enough about the racial setting of the 1990s to speak with any authority but I did also find it interesting that, like Pocahontas, this movie featured inter-racial relationships. I feel like it was more of a deliberate choice in Pocahontas rather than in this movie, as Pocahontas changed the source material in order to fit in the relationship whereas this movie portrayed the text that was in the book. I feel like the idea to adapt this novel in did not just suit the 90s though, as the book has been made into film adaptations as early as 1920. -Logan Kurtz

The death of Uncas felt like the same 'bury your ..." phenomenon even in modern films where the people of color and gay characters are always the first to be killed off in a tragedy filled story. It made absolutely no sense, historically and just in the regards of common sense, that after a single interaction with a random white woman he was willing to die to rescue her, especially as one of the last representatives of a dying culture - dying most likely because of HER people. It's not particularly important in the big picture, but with the emphasis that a lot of the stereotypes put on Native Americans and their relations and loyalty to their tribes and traditions, his death felt disrespectful as the 7 Years War WAS marked by many Native Tribes, especially those on the English side, arguing that it was not their fight. If the Mohicans, including Uncas, did not want to fight their battles, why was he so willing to follow his adopted white brother to save those random white women whom he knew would place him in the middle of the war? -- Jane Michael

Similar to our discussion about Pocahontas, I feel like this movie portrayed the Native Americans, on both sides of the war, as the “wild savage” stereotypes. Especially in the fighting scenes, the film depicted the Mohawks and other warriors in a very inhumane and unorganized way. While the British and French soldiers were uniform, clean, and organized. The way that some Native Americans would use the European guns as clubs during fight scenes, Nathaniel calling them “war parties,” and especially the scene where the farm home was destroyed and the family was murdered all depicted the Native American fighters in a much more brutual light than the British soldiers were. 
--Olivia Foster

This film as a secondary source I think is well as long as you don’t depend too much on it for a “first” account perspective like the characters. We know from class that the characters are mainly made up so the film offers historical events in a way where they can sell what there making.  The main thing I focused on or was in awe about was how the film shows a good distinction between how the native tribes would ally with both opposing sides, the French and the British and even the differences between the colonies and the soldiers who came straight from England (which they haven’t been there long). In the beginning of the movie, the viewer can see how as the soldiers are gathering individuals to fight for Englands cause, many of the men from the colonies are reluctant to do so for there own reasons of “how do I truly benefit”, to which the soldiers question the mens true loyalty to the crown. There is tension and a hierarachy established with British people themselves that in a way usually is overlooked when talking about conflict with other nations. Now the established alliances of the natives within both the British and the French was shown in a way where it was confusing. I know when I saw the first attack I was trying to figure out which side was doing what and why (which we learned later on). With that being said the fighting stances of the native Americans were depicted as wild and the fighting stances with the French and British were historically accurate. Overall this film was okay, I did enjoy one of the interactions the main character had with the female lead where she apologizes and states, “I misunderstood you,” to which the main character replied, “Well, that’s to be expected.” To me it just shows how different everyone was and that they for one don’t want to learn about them and second, if they did, they truly won’t know the cultures fully. - Paula Perez

The Last of the Mohicans, admittedly, was an enjoyable watch, with a good soundtrack and camerawork. The way that it takes on depicting the historical events is an interesting one: it is an interpretation of an interpretation of a historical event. Overall, I thought the film was well done. It does things well but also as a fictional story changes the story to keep the audience hooked. A lot of the film’s Native American characters are played by Native American actors. Chingachgook, Uncas, and Magua, the three main Native American characters in the story, are all played by Native American actors: Russell Means, Eric Schweig, and Wes Studi respectively. Means was an activist for Native Americans and was even a member of the American Indian Movement (AIM). Representation in this respect is done well. Despite this, Native Americans are seen as tragic background characters compared to the love story of Cora and Hawkeye that takes precedent in the film. Magua’s motivations are fueled by tragedy, resulting in his death. Chingachgook is left as the last Mohican, a sad representation of the community and family he has lost. Uncas died in pursuit of saving Alice because he had feelings for Alice? It was his adopted brother’s love interest’s sister? Uncas' death was the epitome of tragedy, a symbol of the Mohicans' chance of continuing dying with it. Hawkeye’s motivations changed as soon as he got involved with Cora, completely disregarding the safety of his adopted father and brother. He was blinded by his love for Cora. The main point I am trying to make is that Native American tragedy was used to prop up a white love story. - Taylor Coleman