Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week. You do not need to post to all areas. – Dr. McClurken

DO NOT DELETE OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS – Please be careful as you add your posts that you are not deleting anyone else's work. – Dr. McClurken

====== How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history? ======

**What the movie was able to depict right about history is how the British and Americans had a idealistic view of "standing up for what they believed in"**. One example was when Colonel Tavington had the townspeople gathered in a church to pry information of Benjamin's whereabouts and right before he gives Captain Wilkins the command to have them burned inside, he says "All those who stand against England deserve to die a traitor's death". Despite Tavington's brutal militaristic tactics and war crimes displayed throughout the film, the manner in which he is portrayed shows how the British wanted to force their influence onto the American colonists by any means possible. **Another point in the film is their ambushes or face to face battle confrontations in which a military tactic called "volley fire" is commonly utilized.** This action would be conducted in which one side of a line of soldiers would fire then the other side in vice versa because reload speed is slower because of muskets is accurate given the circumstances of what was used at the time. The Battle of Yorktown was depicted correctly in which the newly acquired French reinforcements blockaded the British retreating by the Chesapeake Bay and forced Cornwallis to ultimately surrender. -Alex

This film did portray warfare with a nod to some true history in that it** highlighted the value that guerrilla tactics held during the war for the Patriots.** Despite the fact that Benjamin is shown as a one-man-army, the film does a decent job illustrating the effectiveness of the guerrilla tactics that the colonial militia used against the redcoats.** Benjamin's group also makes use of targeting officers first as a strategy;** something that was truly done at the time. - Owen

**The Patriot does have some historical accuracy; but I would estimate that half of them are in the film's "background".** First, Aunt Charlotte had to evacuate her house in Charlestown since the town had been essentially destroyed which is historically accurate; citizens would sometimes flee their homes when they heard an army approaching because they knew it would bring destruction. Also in the film, one of the characters (I don't recall his position in the British Army, but he was higher rank) assured one of the freed Black people that anybody who fought for the Crown would be awarded freedom which was something stated in Lord Dunmore's Proclamation. Another thing I noticed in the **beginning of the movie was that not everyone shared the same opinion of war, it was implied a little that they had to choose a side, whether they were going to support the colonist or the British.** Mel Gibson's character was generally a patriot, but he did not want to go to war; he preferred to live peacefully with his family. Historically, individuals had to decide which side they supported, some did choose to be neutral though. Even if you supported the same side, not everyone on that side was united. They occasionally held different opinions and had different reasons for wanting to be patriots or loyalists. (Hannah E.)

I do think this film is accurate in some ways. **I think, at least, it gets the essence of what the Revolution was.** It wasn’t 100% accurate to how events would have played out, but the drama and intrigue needed for plot purposes is most likely the reason as to why. There were real characters and events that were depicted in the movie as well.** There was, in fact, a General Cornwallis, and Tavington, while not a real person, was based off of a British officer named Banastre Tarleton.** Tarleton was fairly cruel during the war and often made decisions that were vengeful and brutal. The scene in which he kills the men injured at the Martin residence is loosely based on how he handled surrendered continental forces at the Battle of Waxhaws. I would say he’s depicted fairly well to how he acted in real life. There was a surrender at Yorktown which the movie portrays. There was also a General Gates, but the positions and whereabouts of the General don’t line up with the actual timeline of events. - Emma Galvin

**Compared to the previous films we watched, I feel that the Patriot is leagues better in attempting to be more accurate. There were references to actual historical events (Lord Dunmore's Proclamation), the uniforms seemed to be pretty accurate, and the discourse between the colonists was something that was common.** I felt that **Mel Gibson's character displayed what a lot of colonists felt at the time - desiring for freedom but not necessarily in a position to do so.** However, I felt that the// topic of slavery was something the movie missed//. While they made a nod to Dunmore's Proclamation, the characters that seemed to overcome racism (Gabriel, one of the militiamen, etc.) would not have actually happened, and I felt that Benjamin's laborers being freedmen was an easy way to make him seem accepting rather than dealing with the issue of slavery head-on. It became something of a subplot in the wake of American patriotism and parental revenge. - Caty

I believe the movie did have some details about the American Revolution that were true. I observed at the beginning of the film how a soldier for the British army came to Benjamin’s farm and told the African-American farm hands they were freed because they would be fighting for the crown. When one of the workers stated they were already freed and they had no reason to fight for the British, the soldier insinuated he had no choice. The soldier was enforcing the Lord Dunmore proclamation, which was enacted to use freedom of slaves as an incentive to fight with the British. However, I feel not many people of color felt this way during this time because racism was a big issue within the early colonies and, well, throughout a lot of America’s history, but the filmmakers did add in the proclamation which was a fact in American history. -Leah B

The Patriot (2000) has many historically correct aspects to it. Certainly, as any other historical movie it is strung along with fictional elements. However, a characteristic which it does portray correctly is the relationship between the Patriots and the Loyalists. The Patriots were supporters of independence and the Loyalists were supporters of the British king (the crown). This is probably one of the most important parts of the Revolutionary War. The film correctly portrays the conflict between both parties. -Anj

The Patriot is somewhat historically accurate because it is loosely based on real historical figures and events. The battle sequences are the most factual aspects of The Patriot. The film portrays two key battles, the Battle of Camden and the Battle of Cowpens. The movie correctly depicts battle strategies at the time, showing American and British forces marching across the field, fully exposed in regimented columns while firing their rifles. The movie also does a good job of depicting the societal effects of the French and Indian War. Disputes between the loyalists and the patriots regarding British policies relating to frontier expansion and the War's expenses led to colonial discontent, ultimately causing the American Revolution. Due to The Patriot’s association as an action film, it is clear that the creators focused more attention on the depiction of battle and bloodshed. - Sam B

**I thought this movie did miles better than the first two that we watched and it was clear that the filmmakers didn’t want this movie to just be a romance or a “hollywood extravaganza.” Although I will say those random slo-mo shots every now and then got me.** I really liked how much **the characters referenced the French and Indian War as a reason for their anger towards the monarchy rather than just blaming it on “taxes” or singling out the Stamp Act as many other portrayals of the Revolution have**. **Something else I thought this film did extremely well (which other depictions seem to miss a lot) was the representation of the “neutral.”** Although Benjamin doesn’t exactly stay neutral for long, he takes a somewhat neutral stance at the beginning – not because he didn’t believe they should be free but because he didn’t think a war was necessary. Other reasons for being neutral that the film portrayed were pacifism, odds of beating the British, and fear. -- Emma F.

The Patriot does get some stuff right. **One thing it gets right, which we see from the very beginning of the movie, is that British troops destroyed everything in their path**. We see this multiple times in the movie because almost every time British troops would “visit” someone’s property they would kill the people’s their and burn all buildings down. **Another thing this film gets right is that one of the Colonials biggest strengths was knowing the land.** This is even brought front and center when Benjamin tells Gabriel that he raised him to know the quickest paths right before they separated to recruit men. The film also is right in its portrayal of how soldiers would recycle anything they could. This is **most prominent in the movie when we see Benjamin melt down all of Thomas’s toy soldiers to use as bullets**. -Maddy W

====== Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======

This movie does a very bad job at depicting the British army as they were during the Revolutionary war. The movie makes them seem like high brow elitists who looked down on the colonists with such a high degree of disdain. Although there were certainly some British military officers that acted like this, it is played up for the movie with the officers effectively being caricatures. The main British general is so blatantly evil and has no problem committing atrocities on the colonists, most of which didn’t happen in the first place, to make an overly clear antagonistic force. - Ewan H

Despite the movie showing the patriotism of the American colonist in their fight against their British adversaries, it also has glaring issues in terms of accuracy. Benjamin Martin while a man suffering throughout the film to overcome the atrocities of his past, through adversity is able to overcome to become a hero fighting for the greater good of not only his family but for his country. Besides Benjamin Martin being a fictional character, he is completely different in attitude towards the people. Martin is based off of a real-life military officer named Francis Marion; Marion unlike Martin was a slaveowner who was abusive towards his slaves. Another issue in this movie is how race relations are omitted out from reality and one example can be how one racist soldier once saved by a black soldier learns the error in his ways and shows comradery towards the man. -Alex

The Patriot is not overly accurate as many of its characters and events were composites of real characters and events designed to serve the fictional narrative. For example, the film's main character, Benjamin Martin, is a composite of several real-life figures, including Francis Marion, Thomas Sumter, and Andrew Pickens. The scene with the burning of the church is also inaccurate, as there were no reports of churches being burnt down during the Revolution. In addition, the film does poorly handling notions regarding slavery. The film depicts slavery in South Carolina as practically nonexistent, and the few slaves shown are cheerful and have been given their freedom. Furthermore, the movie misinterprets Washington's proclamation about freeing slaves who served in the Continental armies. The offer did not apply to units such as the local militia, which were solely under state control. The Patriot sacrifices character and event details to create a story that is more interesting and packed full of action. - Sam B

An inaccuracy I observed is the stance that a lot of historical movies have, which is that America can do no wrong. I do not believe they accurately portrayed slavery. Most slaves weren’t happily working in America, nor were they treated with human decency. To me, it seems like the film didn’t want to taint the beautiful American image they were aiming for. -Leah B

The film does create some discussion on the tension between different factions of colonists and the political conversations and debates that people were having about the war, particularly earlier in the film. This is a fairly interesting aspect of the conflict for the film to explore. However, the film does play up how horrible the British forces were and severely downplays the realities of slavery in the South of America at this time. This makes the central characters more sympathetic but paints a simpler and more digestible version of this history. - Rickie

This film gets a whole lot wrong about the time period and the attitudes and lives of people living then. First of all, it introduces the workers of Benjamin's property, in rural South Carolina, as "freed men" simply working the land - something which would have been exceedingly rare at that time in that region. Additionally, the film mentions George Washington issuing a proclamation offering freedom to slaves after 12 months of service - something which never happened. And then there is this notion of "fighting for freedom and building a new world" something which was further from the truth than the idea that they were building off of old rivalries in the region. Additionally, the film downplays the importance of the French alliance, and completely villainizes the British. - Owen

I feel as the role of slavery in the film was ignored and showed in an inaccurate way. Many Southern landowners, even those who were fighting for independence, were slave owners. It would be unusual to see a free Black person in the South as shown in the film because the South depended on enslaved individuals. Another historical inaccuracy the movie had was the motivation of fighting in the war. Personal revenge and kinship were shown as the main motivators for fighting rather than the motivation of liberty and self-governance which was downplayed. Like Mel Gibson's character, two of his children were murdered which motivated him to participate in the war not because he wanted liberty or self-governance. (Hannah E.)

As discussed in class, Benjamin Martin was not an actual figure in the war, instead he was a collection of personalities from militia leaders. Apparently Martin’s character was mostly founded from Francis Marion, also known as “swamp fox.” The movie got a couple things wrong about some of these figures they modeled Martin off of. One of the biggest being how Benjamin Martin did’t have slaves, instead he had freed black men/women who seemed to be apart of his family. In reality, Marion had a terrible reputation for how he treated slaves. As for the antagonist in this film, the makers tried to intensify how cruel Tavington was. While he was known to not take prisoners, they wanted to demonize him as much as possible. For example, the scene where he burned down the church with all the innocent people locked in didn’t actually happen. This shows to be an example of the makers trying to make the British super dark and twisted, while making the Americans resilient heroes. - Matt S.

The Patriot’s historical inaccuracies seem to largely stem from its desire to push the founding myth that surrounds the American Revolutionary War. Time and time again, the history of those involved on the side of the Patriot forces has been whitewashed, and this scenario is no exception. The movie makes some effort to portray some of the more negative aspects of the militiamen fighting under Martin (such as one or two scenes involving racist comments and very sparse war crimes in the form of taking no quarter), but seems keen on neglecting some of the more horrific actions undertaken by the real-world militia under Francis Marion, on whom Benjamin Martin is based. Additionally, the film is so unbelievably over-the-top in its portrayal of British atrocities committed by Banastre Tarleton that it’s a wonder that any English actors agreed to be in the film in the first place. Tarleton, like Marion, engaged in various war crimes, the most egregious of which was arguably the refusal of quarter to prisoners. But suggesting that the man torched a Church full of civilians and straight up merked little boys for gits and shiggles is an invention crafted by the filmmakers in order to really drive home the point that we’re supposed to be rooting for the Americans. - John M.

While this film correctly depicts many aspects of the Revolutionary war, it exaggerates certain elements. The character of Benjamin Martin was very much so dramaticized, along with the brutality of the British as a whole. -Anj

A large issue I saw in this film was how the film dealt with the issue of race/slavery. The Revolutionary War is very interesting because of how contradictory our Founding Fathers (and many of those fighting) were; they were fighting for freedom (a simple generalization) while a large portion of them owned enslaved people and the colonies economically relied on that labor. I was curious to see how the film dealt with that tension, but for the most part it was ignored or brushed aside. I was shocked with the decision that Benjamin did not own slaves. Let’s be clear, no successful Southern farmer of that time had ‘freed men’ working his land. Also, George Washington never issued freedom to enslaved men who served a year in his army. George Washington and the Continental Congress were very against the idea of an integrated army; it was only used as a last resort. If anything, the British were better for enslaved men! Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation (1775) did what this fictional Washington did and offered freedom in exchange for service. -Allie

There were a few historical inaccuracies in this film. One being that even though this film takes place in the south, most of the people of color we see in the movie are free not slaves. While there were free black people in the south at that time it was not as common as the movie makes it out to be. Another inaccuracy in The Patriot is that Native Americans were never present in the film. While it is true that the further along into the war, the less Native Americans were involved this film only mentions Native Americans in context to the seven years war. When in reality, many were allied with the British at the start of the war and typically used as scouts.  -Maddy W

Besides the glossing over of the issue of slavery, a thing that was historically inaccurate that I believe was mostly put in there for shock value was the scene with the British burning down the church with civilians still inside. While there is evidence the British occasionally burned down churches during the Revolutionary War, there is very little evidence that supports the notion that any civilians were inside when that happened. The scene itself is dramatic and makes audiences hate the British even more due to how villainized and one dimensional they're portrayed. It's another way to show how they're the bad guys and the patriots are the good guys who were wronged and are therefore justified in their war.-Vumiliya V.

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

**This film’s interpretation of the American Revolution deviates from other sources by feeling as though it was written by the most American Americans to ever be American.** The depictions of the British are so cartoonishly evil, and the depictions of the Patriot movement are flawed as well. **There is hardly any depiction of loyalist colonists, or neutral colonists for that matter, even though those two groups made up a majority of the population.** The British freeing of the “farm workers” (weren’t even referred to as slaves which is a whole other thing) was seen as sad and unjust but when the Patriots did a similar action in retaliation it was seen as noble and hopeful. The Patriot perspective is so intense that it’s hard to take the movie seriously in any way whatsoever. - Ewan H

**Although this doesn’t have much to do with the actual Revolution much, I thought the biggest deviation the movie had was essentially the ‘removal’ of slavery.** I mean, there were slaves depicted, but they were only referred to as “slaves” once or twice and only by the British. They sort of imply it by mentioning that Charlotte owns a plantation or when one colonist says “I’ll give you my negro,” but for the most part, they were called farmers or farm workers (or something similar). This almost paints the colonists as anti-slavery to a certain extent, which was definitely not true as they have been proven for very long now to be avid slave-holders. Especially since this movie takes place in the South. -- Emma F.

The film skirts over the issue of slavery a lot. It is hardly mentioned or depicted in it and the film even mentioned that George Washington had promised freedom to slaves that served in the Continental Army for a year when that was simply not true. **This is all likely due to the fact that the movie wants to paint the patriots, or the "good guys", as being primarily more morally upstanding than the British, the "bad guys", who would burn down a church with innocent people inside.**-Vumiliya V.

====== How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made? ======

This film reveals a lot about the attitudes people held towards America at the time the film was made. There is an interesting contrast between the very prominent pro-America, patriotic messaging and the more subtle messaging about the negative effects of war. It’s difficult to create a film that is realistic about war and violence while also endorsing the war and its cause. While this film seems to strike that balance, it is interesting that it tries, at least in the beginning of the film, to present more nuance and conflict about people’s feelings towards the war. - Rickie

This movie worked as a good primary source in the battle scenes. Most of the time the two armies would line up against each other (which would make everyone go mad) and politely take turns shooting. They also add in a lot of the guerilla war tactics, showing the sometimes brutal sides of the violence. Lots of the rules of warfare were being challenged and broken. You could see how sometimes both sides would respect those rules, but in the heat of the battle, many on both would cross a line. Furthermore, while the Patriot got the warfare aspect correct, they interpreted a lot of it in their own way. It seemed like they really wanted to appeal to the 21st century audience by intensifying heroism and patriotism. Having these aspects shows how history can be made to be remembered in ways that may not be very accurate, but portray ideals that people want to see. -Matt S.

I think The Patriot is a good primary source about how filmmakers wanted to depict American history in 2000, along with audience expectations of how it should be portrayed. One of the first things I noticed was the fact that Benjamin Martin and his family have African American workers and servants, not enslaved peoples. While possible that this could have occurred during this time, it seems fairly unlikely given the fact that it was South Carolina in the late 1700s and slavery wasn’t as big of a moral dilemma at this particular time. The movie depicted it this way because you want the heroes and good guys of the story to be as morally upstanding as possible, and if the Martins did own slaves, it would ruin the protagonist's impression given to the audience. During this time, many filmmakers tiptoed around morally grey and outright awful things that happened in America's past. Any atrocity we see is done by the British. For example, the burning of the church and town was done by Tavington and his men. He also gave the order to murder any continental soldiers receiving care by the Martins after the battle that occurred on their property. If the patriots did anything questionable during the war, in this movie at least, it was due to an act of revenge or for the betterment and spirit of the revolution. - Emma Galvin

This movie can work as a primary source in a way that it simplifies the time period of the revolutionary war. It depicts what happened in a exaggerated way focusing on heroism, romance, patriotism for historical accuracy. It also portrays the violence and brutality of the war whether it was the guerilla warfare or conventional fighting style of the British.-Ryan K

====== The "So What" Question ======

The American Revolutionary War makes up a significant portion of the founding mythos of the United States of America. The men who fought in that conflict, who penned documents pertaining to freedom, who argued for Independence, are the same men we find in statues, on our money, and in songs and films dedicated to portraying the War that made the U.S. of A. It’s crucial, then, that we ensure that we’re getting the story right, rather than just waving Old Glory about and suggesting that our founding was peaches and cream, which is what Gibson and Co. were so totally keen on doing with The Patriot. The portrayal of American slavery is lackluster at best, with Martin being portrayed as just having happy-go-lucky field hands who are just so very pleased to be working on the farm of a man who previously owned them. The closest thing we get to an admirable portrayal of an enslaved character is Occam, whose character at times seems present only to serve as a foil to a racist white dude who magically overcomes his prejudice by the end of the film. The movie has exactly one prominent Loyalist character in the entirety of the film, in spite of the fact that South Carolina was as much of a bastion of Loyalism as it was Patriotism. This aims to reinforce the falsehood that almost every single Colonist was raring to go for Independence, and that the Loyalists were few in number. Why? Because it sounds better for our Founding Mythos if the lot of us were on the same page from the jump. Lying to ourselves about our history is no way to get along as a society, and it is for THAT particular reason that The Patriot remains such an egregious offense against our national narrative. - John M.

In class, we have discussed the notion that history is decided by the winners and I think this film is an excellent example of that idea. This movie is aggressively American. While this isn’t shocking, it’s still incredibly problematic in how it essentially said “patriots are good” and “British are bad.” War is war and both sides are capable of extreme violence and bloodshed, even when it is the “good” side — in this case, Washington’s Army. Essentially, the horrible actions taken by the “American” side are ignored or unfairly justified because of how evil they made the British. By doing so, it doesn’t allow for audience members to understand the nuance of the Revolutionary War and war in general. -Allie

The Patriot is a movie made for the American. It's meant to be something that reminds the viewer why America is a place of freedom and liberty, and that people like Benjamin are the people to be inspired by. At its core, the movie is about a man who not only wants to avenge his children, but create a world in which said children can live freely. This movie is important to the rhetoric that America is founded on the concept of freedom (even with the complete skirting around slavery in the movie), and that the Rev. war didn't just happen in places like Boston or Lexington, it was also in the woods of South Carolina. It's a historical movie that has action, romance, family, and in some places a little bit of humor, and it can be viewed as telling the American origin story. - Caty

The Patriot is an important movie for in the way that it shows what happened in this pivotal time period in way the mast majority of people will like and enjoy. It shows the brutal side of the war while telling a story that has some truth to it. This shows in the brutal war scenes and towns getting burned to the ground. It does a good job of showing the effectiveness of guerilla warfare and the effect that it did on the war. It also showed how both sides where promising freedom to slaves. And how people were still opposed to fighting with slaves even while they were fighting with them. One of the best things this movie portrayed is the effect it had on families choosing who they helped and how they helped.-Ryan K

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International