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? ======

i think this movie does great in historical accuracy and does a good job as a secondary source. the movie accurately displays the horrors of what it was like to be on a boat as a slave. it shows how africans where bought and sold illegally. it does a great job of showing the attitude was like in America during that time. there were massive tension of the subject about slaves.it shows the process The Amistad case went through several court battles, reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, where former President John Quincy Adams successfully defended the Africans’ right to freedom. The film effectively captures the legal complexity of the case and Adams' pivotal role in the trial.There might be a little historical inaccuracy and added drama, but overall makes a great secondary source. - Jedidia Kazadi

I feel the film did well in terms of historical accuracy, at least compared to other films we've seen. The first scene in the film was pretty realistic.  Sengbe (Cinqué) freed himself from shackles and the other enslaved individuals on La Amistad. Cinqué freed himself and the others from their chains and on La Amistad. After seizing control of the ship, they murdered crew members but kept Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montes alive. This was true to history; Cinqué and other enslaved people did manage to free themselves and take control of the ship with the intention of returning to Africa. They killed the ship's crew (cooks, etc.) while keeping Ruiz and Montes alive for nagivation. When Clinqué, Ruiz, and Montes try to communicate, Clinqué signs them to follow the sun, which means go east, which is also historically correct. Another historically accurate detail I observed in the film was that when the slaves arrived in America and were essentially put in prison pending their trial, people came to the jail and turned them into a spectacle. Lastly, how Clinqué was seized by other Africans and sold is true to the times. Africans were enslaved by other Africans, who subsequently sold them to European traders. (Hannah E.)

The movie has a lot of characters that were involved with the case represented in the film: people like Cinque, John Quincy Adams, and Lewis Tappan. The overarching story of the Amistad seems to be represented very well starting with the capturing and illegal smuggling of the Mende all the way through the ruling of the Supreme Court. The series of events as they happened seem mostly in line with what is agreed upon by historians. The movie also makes some individual portrayals accurate in terms of their motivations and roles in the trial. Roger Sherman (based on Roger Baldwin) was about arguing this case in terms of property law, whereas John Quincy Adams argued this case on moral grounds. - Ewan H

While the Amistad does work as a secondary source in a cinematic manner it is not as objective. This movie has an educational value to it with the way it raises awareness about the Atlantic slave trade and slavery overall in the 19th century. What’s interesting to note is how there is that intimate focus on narrative and emotion within the film. This movie tends to focus more on the storytelling aspect and has an emotional appeal to the audience. Many facts were portrayed correctly in this film. One of note is the Supreme Court ruling decision. This ruling was that the Africans were enslaved illegally and that they should be freed. -Anj

The film was able to portray what actual transpired during the Atlantic Slave Trade pretty accurately. Events such as the rebellion by the Mende slaves on the La Amistad to the destruction of the Lomboko slave fortress by the British were actual events that transpired during this era. People such as former President John Adams, Josiah Willard Gibbs, Tappan, and Roger Sherman Baldwin are all real people who played significant roles in being able to win this case in the Supreme Court granting the freedom to the captured Mende slaves. Another accuracy that follows the slave trading is how other Africans sold by other Africans to the European slave traders at Lomboko for example. The British involvement into this issue was that it was illegal under the Emancipation Act which is why Captain Fitzgerald to have Lomboko destroyed at the end of the film. --Alex

This film gets several things right history, particularly the experience of the middle passage, unfortunately right. Its brutal depiction of what captured people went through rightly invokes the horror such an experience would have brought. It accurately depicts the way Africans were kidnapped and sold by other Africans in exchange for material gain. It also gets the major details from the Tecora to the Amistad  correct. The film also succeeds in showing the attitude that the general populace had towards abolitionists at the time with the death threats Baldwin received. The policies of the British and the Spanish were also accurately represented for the time period. - Owen

There are many choices made in this film, many of which assisted in accurately portraying historical facts and conveyed interesting ideas. This film portrays the brutality experienced by enslaved Africans facing the passage across the Atlantic. These scenes are intense, unlike films we have previously watched, like The Patriot, which pushed slavery into the background of the narrative. The broad strokes of what happened in these trials and how they progressed are also accurate, with the progression from a smaller, more local court jurisdiction up to the level of the Supreme Court. - Rickie
 
I think Amistad got a fair bit correct compared to what actually transpired. Cinque was a real person, his revolt on the Amistad and the sequence of court cases all happened. I think one of the biggest things the film got right was how brutal slavery and the slave trade was. A lot of movies, including the Patriot, have shied away from the reality of it all. While certain depictions or events might not be 100% accurate, it made the viewer see the atrocities and cruelties of the slave trade, especially in the Middle Passage. They also highlighted enslavement holdings that were on the west African coast, like Lomboko and the fact that a lot of African people were the ones to capture and enslave other Africans. It was more uncommon for white sailors in the slave trade to do so. There were some minor inaccuracies in terms of how some of the court cases played out and they seemed to cut down how long the Mende people were held in prison. The movie made it seem like a couple of months, when in reality, these cases transpired over a couple of years. Overall, this movie did a fairly decent job and you can see an attempt was made to depict the actuality of events. - Emma Galvin

Overall, the filmmakers of Amistad did a pretty accurate job in their portrayal of the Atlantic slave trade and their depiction of African culture. The film correctly shows the true story of the fifty-four Africans who were illegally captured from Africa and brought to the United States from Cuba aboard the ship La Amistad and their struggles against their captors, their subsequent re-apprehension, and the legal battle around their status. Credit can also be given to Amistad as the film includes several real-life people including Joseph Cinque, John Quincy Adams, Roger Baldwin, Martin Van Buren, and Lewis Tappan. Importantly, the film also highlights the diversity of African culture, including tribal divisions, language differences, and cultural beliefs. Amistad gives faces and names for its African characters, whom the movies often make into faceless victims. - Sam B.

This movie works relatively well for me as a secondary source. As far as telling the story of Cinque and the slave trade in general (especially the progression of slave laws before the Civil War broke out) the movie does a really good job. Anyone beginning to learn about this topic in school or just clueless in general would be able to gain a pretty good understanding. However, some of the courtroom scenes were a little exaggerated and maybe not as accurate as the other parts of the movie. --Emma F.

In terms of accuracy, the Amistad does far better in that regard than 
the other films we've watched so far this semester. It works as a secondary source due to the fact that it stuck fairly close to the accuracy of the events that transpired, from the horrors of the Middle Passage, the insurrection of the Mende on the Amistad, their capture and imprisonment in the US, and the later court trials they had to go through to achieve freedom. A big thing that I thought the movie did especially well with was in depicting the language barrier that existed and how frustrating it would have been trying to fight for your freedom but not being understand due to a difference in language.-Vumiliya V.

One facet of history that Amistad gets right was the transatlantic journey undertaken by slave ships known as the Middle Passage, and the indescribable horror that awaited those being transported within the timbers of those aforementioned vessels. Depictions of the Middle Passage were not unheard of in American media by 1997, though they were undoubtedly uncommon (Roots, which came out in 1977, is the only prior depiction that comes to mind as being widely-viewed). Not only is it important for depictions of the Middle Passage to be spread by films like Amistad, it is crucial that they actually be ACCURATE. Based on the autobiography of Olaudah Equiano, it seems safe to suggest that the depiction of what occurred on ships like the Tecora was an accurate one, and portrays the inhuman manner in which Africans being transported were treated with, as well as the high mortality rate amongst the enslaved. -John M.

I think that Amistad works very well as a secondary source. Maybe some viewers actually were led to believe the filmmakers got every single detail right, but for the most I would assume they know the filmmakers are going to take creative liberties. Even if they exaggerated the characters and scenes, it is still a very valuable film in bringing awareness to this compelling story. It may not have been able to capture all the complexities and brutality of what happened, but it gave the viewer some insight into what the slaves had to go through. Amistad was able to do that as well with detailed contexts and scenes to get a feel for what the atmosphere was like. One of the smaller details I noticed during one of the courtroom scenes was Cinque starting to sweat and even freak out during the session. This seemed to me signs of PTSD, most likely from all the white men around him, reminding him of the terrible things that he had to go through. Seeing that showed me that the makers of this film did give a lot of effort into trying to get the story right. While they weren’t perfect, overall Amistad is a great secondary source for people to have to introduce them to this part of history. -Matt S.

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

The film simplifies certain events and dramatizes others to be seen as more entertaining, as movies do. While the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling is portrayed correctly within the film, there is some error. The intense focus on the Supreme Court case itself underplays in a way, what had happened before this case even made it to the Supreme Court. Many legal battles occurred beforehand and obviously, the case had had to move through many different levels legally to even get to the Supreme Court. The whole legal system was just incredibly simplified for the sake of viewers. -Anj

One historical error I saw was how Roger Sherman (based on Roger Sherman Baldwin) was depicted. In the beginning of the film, they portrayed him as simply wanting to win (unmorally) and being money hungry. But, Baldwin's morals and outlook does change throughout the film.  However, to me, this was inaccurate since Baldwin had generally represented and concerned himself with the less fortunate citizens, and as I read more about the case, it appeared that he was genuine in his intentions. Additionally, he was a committed abolitionist. Another noticeable inaccuracy is that the film simplifies or changes aspects to achieve a dramatic effect. For example, the courtroom scenes and conflicts. (Hannah E.)

This film messed around with several details and attempted to change the significance of the Amistad case in the context of the civil war. Firstly, they downplayed the role that Tappan played in freeing the Mende, while overselling the contributions of Baldwin. Their initial capture by the Americans reportedly did not involve any shots fired and proceeded rather peacefully on behalf of one of the Mende being able to speak some english. It was the Mende who wrote to Adams, not Baldwin. Adams' speech was not nearly as brief as it was made out to be and did not have the decisive effect that the film portrayed. There was also this notion the movie pushed forward in that the Amistad case, if won for the Mende, would be the defining moment which set us on the path to civil war. In reality, many events would lead up to the war for another 2 decades. - Owen

The film’s attempt to focus on the specific case of the Amistad unsurprisingly leads to an overestimation of the case’s importance, especially domestically. Not knowing much about the actual case and its outcome could lead viewers to believe that it was a pivotal moment in the American legal system’s opinion of slavery as an institution, rather than having a more localized influence on views of the transatlantic slave trade specifically. While it certainly created a precedent and had an effect, it was a drop in a much larger bucket eventually leading to the civil war. — Claire

The overall story of the Amistad is quite accurate, however, the film takes liberties by misleading the direction of the case, falsely representing African culture, and focusing too much on white abolitionists. Firstly, the film gives the impression that the Supreme Court's ruling on the Amistad case was a major step toward abolishing slavery, but in reality, the case was about the Atlantic slave trade and property rights. Secondly, the film portrays the Africans in ways that falsify their experiences, such as by making Christianity a positive force in their lives. Finally, the film focuses on a group mostly composed of white abolitionists with one token black abolitionist who is unimportant to the film’s plot. The story of the Amistad was updated and told through the perspective of morality instead of legality. - Sam B

A big thing that I noticed while watching this film was that it seriously overestimated the impact the Amistad would have in the continuance of slavery in America. While it's true that the case gained national attention due to the nature of it, there was little to no fear of civil war erupting within the states because of the case. In the movie however, there are constant mentions of the fear of civil war. Another thing was the character of Theodore Joadson who was one that was completely made up for the film.In this way, the film does a poor job of depicting race relations due to the fact that Joadson, and other black people excluding the Mende, were seen within the courtroom when it's all too likely that they would have been kept out of court proceedings. Another thing that stuck out to me was the campaigning of Martin Van Buren for president early on in the movie. While I'm not quite sure when exactly this change took place, I do know that during this time period in question openly/publicly campaigning was something that wasn't done by candidates due to the fact that it looked bad. -Vumiliya V.

One of the biggest historical inaccuracies I saw in La Amistad is the amount of women and children on the ship. Historically it was mainly men who were brought over since they were valued higher since they would be stronger workers. I think they did this to make the audience more invested in the atrocities that were happening since having families strikes closer to home. This aligns with the film’s general tendency to exaggerate the moral emotional stakes of the story. Doing things like condensing and simplifying the legal battles. And creating a main protagonist out of Cinque to make the audience have someone to focus on. -Ryan K.

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

I think that this movie, in its effort to remain as true to the original tale as possible, did not miss the mark too heavily. To speak more to the specific sources assigned, the creators of the movie made up Morgan Freeman's character, Joadson, but I felt that they emulated the role that Black Abolitionists played in the overall setting of the abolitionist movement. This is shown in the source about David Walker, who was a Black abolitionist at the time and though he did not mention the Amistad directly (this excerpt was before the case), the points he makes and his feelings about slavery is something Joadson's character emulates. Everything else regarding this case seemed to be on-point, save for the translator. In the sources, it mentions that the interpreter did not actually speak Mende, but a version of the overarching language. This meant that the on-point, completely accurate translations happening in the movie was not what actually happened in real life, but rather a romanticized version of it. - Caty

The film takes liberties in the portrayal of the Mende people and especially Joseph Cinque for dramatic effect. For example, he is shown with a very exaggerated and intensely aggressive personality and we have no idea if he had any of the characteristics or outbursts depicted in the movie. This portrayal is not based on fact, and not much is even known about Cinque. These choices cause the Mende people as a whole to appear wild and somewhat uncivilized. The film also shows President Van Buren almost non-autonomous and not able to make his own decisions. His advisor is played up as the villain who directs him on how to proceed. This removes the responsibility off of Van Buren, who in actuality, made these decisions and chose to pursue this path. -Jennifer

Amistad seems to be a film that takes certain liberties pertaining to the facts of the events surrounding the case on which the movie is based, though whether or not these diversions from the truth are justified or not is a different matter. For instance, in the Tappan letter, the abolitionists states that the Africans had not been shackled (‘manacled’, as he puts it in archaic terms) since their being placed in American custody. However, throughout the movie, Spielberg depicts the Africans in chains and ragged clothing; a depiction that is contrary to Tappan’s firsthand account. That being said, I believe that this is an inaccuracy that is perfectly reasonable, and had a particular use for its inclusion. The utilization of chains provides a more striking visual representation for the lack of freedoms that the Africans had, making it all the more powerful for the audience when they are finally unshackled. An instance where certain historical liberties being taken might have been detrimental to the surrounding historical narrative comes from the film’s rather obvious utilization of the well-documented “white savior” trope. The film places an excessive emphasis on the fictionalized version of Baldwin. For instance, it portrays him as the one who reached out to John Quincy Adams, rather than the Africans themselves. This distortion of the facts of the case takes the initiative away from the Africans in freeing themselves - an initiative which they very much possessed and utilized. - John M.

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

This film shows the increased focus on race relation.Rodney King was badly beaten by LA police which then caused riots in the early 90s.Films like Amistad reflected a growinginterest in confronting slavery and racial injustice. This time period also showed us diversity in films. There was an increase in telling stories that are just not about white people. Black stories and films were more cretaed to raise awareness to the racial injustice in the country. - Jedidia

The fact that this movie was made only a few years before The Patriot comes through in its similar treatment of a messy, extended historical process as a neat and satisfyingly climactic event. Both possess a hopeful theme of freedom as an American ideal. It feels very patriotic, despite the subject matter. The 1990s saw many of these sorts of epic historical dramas being made, such as Last of the Mohicans, Braveheart, or Saving Private Ryan. The fact that such a movie was made about this specific case, which is perhaps not known to the average person, shows that this genre was having a good run and doing very well for itself. Doubly so that it was made by a major studio and directed by arguably one of the most well-known modern filmmakers. — Claire

As a primary source about the time in which it was made, it seemed to fit within the category of the 1990s filmmaking that our previous movies have established. Though covering a very different topic than movies like The Patriot and Last of the Mohicans, this movie still has a similar pro-American style to it in a way I can't quite place. I also think it establishes - perhaps unintentionally - some of the first major moves to make movies directly discussing the topic of slavery. Other movies from the 90s (before and after this one was released) skirt around the topic in order to portray an American narrative that's positive and whitewashed. Rather in this movie, the main topic is whether or not these kidnapped Africans are considered enslaved or not. I feel that in the context of the 1990's, this is a bold move for a motion picture, but sets the stage that topics like slavery is not something to be ignored or shied away from, while still maintaining a more positive American perspective by making the "bad guys" foreign enslavers rather than Americans (save for the Southerners). - Caty

This movie is very similar to that of The Patriot. Both movies aim to depict “the cost” of the actions or events at hand, which I think both movies do really well. Considering that they were both made around the same time, it would make sense that they have similar filmmaking styles. Both movies also portray a large level of patriotism, which as we discussed last week, makes sense considering the rising nationalistic ideas that were present during this time. The other thing I noticed – which was small – was that Spielberg chose when to caption the Mende and when not to. In their more “savage” moments, the Mende men and their language was not captioned and when they were having more “civilized” conversations, the Mende was subtitled. I think this just shows that as ‘progressive’ this film may seem, some stereotypes were still being pushed to a certain extent. --Emma F.

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

This kind of historical movie matters because of the story that it told and the audience that it was able to reach. Many historical movies are about well known or popular things that a person knows about going in. By getting such a massive filmmaker like Steven Spielberg to direct this movie about a story that is both interesting enough and dramatic enough to be entertaining but also lesser known in the public eye, a light is shown on to the story of Cinque and this whole ordeal. A movie like this also speaks to what historical movies can be, as a great deal of care and effort went into this one being accurate (with broad strokes) and it shows. This movie also demonstrates that covering a lesser known topic can effectively control the view of it in public knowledge and is associated with the major motion picture more so than the event itself, which I feel like isn’t common with many popular historical events. - Ewan H

This movie while not generally seen as a massive spectacle in terms of its rating across the general audience holds greater importance then what people realize about that era. The United States vs The Amistad case was able to reveal the inhumane actuality of slavery during the 1840s and how this issue would be brought into the political realm. The discourse between the legitimacy as to whether or not the Mende slaves were to be deemed as property of Cuba would reveal the greater problem slavery had on the country as a whole. Southerners like John C. Calhoun for example strongly advocated for slavery for its economic benefits for people in the south. However, its people like former President Adams that serve as a beacon of light to stand on the morals and ideals of the United States Constitution that all people are created equal. -- Alex

I find it very interesting that this film was being promoted in the classroom. That shows a lot about the intent of the filmmakers to reach a broad audience with a story that they viewed as forgotten to history. The decision to center the violence of enslavement and attempting to spread that message, particularly in an educational setting, is respectable. While this film does overemphasize the role that the Amistad case played in the process of emancipation, it accurately depicted the broad strokes of the events which occurred and casual viewers of the film would leave with a fairly accurate understanding of the case. - Rickie

I think this film is important in terms of history and history in film. It teaches people about an unknown event, while also alluding to the fact that slavery, was in fact, this brutal and inhumane. While this story is relatively unknown, it has a well known director that probably drew people into see the film. They went to see it for the name, and hopefully stayed because it taught them something new. I personally have never heard of this event in history before, and as someone who likes history, I am always interested to learn about something new. Even if the movie ends up not being accurate, I still find myself researching what it's trying to depict to depart fact from fiction. While this film is mostly accurate, that is not the case for all films. Even so, it introduces the concept to an audience that otherwise was not being taught or talked about. - Emma Galvin

There are few movies like this that show the realities of suffering. Twelve Years a Slave comes to mind, but I can’t think of any others that really get into the dehumanizing experience of slavery: especially on the slave passage. Having the actors be nude brings another level of humanity to it because it’s a bit shocking. Into the 20th and 21st centuries, people have become immune and callous to the experience of slavery because it was so long ago, that it has now been reduced to lines in a textbook. We all know about slavery, but often don’t stop to truly have empathy for their position. Sitting through what feels like an eternity of agonizing scenes is nothing compared to what these people’s lives were like. Its important to understand it, and though its hard to watch media like this, it remains one of the only ways to grab people’s attention and to preserve these emotional stories. 
 -Jennifer

This movie is important because it shows the brutality while also showing the legal side of history. It tells a story of human rights and the battle for it. Also, it shows how it was about whether they were acquired legally or illegally, taking away from other important things like their human rights. It also shows how important legal battles such as these, and other such big cases, can affect history up and down the country. Ultimately, *La Amistad* highlights the power of the legal system to both challenge and uphold justice in pivotal moments of history.-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