Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Last of the Mohicans open blog
During the course of the next two nights, post at least three comments in regards to the film Last of the Mohicans. While a fictional tale, the film nevertheless offers a somewhat accurate portrayal of the period you are learning about. In your posts, explain how the film addresses any of the issues that we've either discussed in class or you've read in the textbook, namely the military and relationship ones. Be specific in your examples. As always, be sure to comment on your classmates' observations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the beginning of the movie, it shows the British army pretty much forcing the colonists to fight in the French and Indian war, however the colonists were hesitant to battle. the English were surprised that they would have to bargain with the militia and have respect for the British. this scene shows how the British wanted respect from the colonists who they were treating like dirt.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ricky on the treatment of the colonists. The British tried to guilt the colonists into fighting in that war by saying that they should fight for the king. Already this exhibits the feeling of supremacy over the colonists which later causes huge rifts between the two.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you because the English's thought of supremecy as Tyler said will build and build until the colonists revolt in the future. But I also noticed that the Indians had guns and to have them means that they must have traded with the French so that France would have the Indians on their side and the Indians would have weapons. This shows that the relationship between the French and Indians was very benificial to both Native Americans and France.
ReplyDeleteEven though we've seen less than a half hour of the movie, the British army's overall lack of respect for the colonists is already obvious. They expect the colonial settlers to start a militia, simply on the demands of the king overseas. The colonists, however, showed themselves to be equally willful, when the refused to do so until they could be guaranteed that they could leave the fighting if their homes were attacked. In terms of military, we have the enormous, fancy British army and the colonial militia, which is less organized and much smaller. And in terms of relationships, I hope that British lady doesn't seduce the Native American guy who looks white, because she's kind of annoying.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Ricky and Tyler. The British thought of themselves superiors to the colonists. Therefore the British expected the colonists to undoubtedly fight in the war and were very suprised when the colonists were hesitant. Having to fight in the war for the British annoyed the colonists and gave them one more reason to want to break away from Britain. This dwindling relationship is effectively shown at the start of the movie.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Melinh and Ricky about The British making negotiations with the colonists and persuading them, with no respect, into fighting in the war. The movie captured the characteristics of the military for the British and Indians. The British wore expensive uniforms and had good weapons. As we discussed in class this was one example of how money was spent on the military. The Indians on the other hand had a small unorganized military and used guerrilla warfare while the British remained in line.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ricky statements regarding the relationship between the British and the colonists because they were pressuring them into the French and Indian War. The British demanded loyalty and respect from the colonists, which is something that should come naturally from the colonists' own wills, in order to successfuly compete with the motivation to win. In the movie, the attitude in which the British general addressed the colonists with suggested that he felt superior and expected obedience to his orders. However, like Melinh said, the colonists would need to accept forming a colonial militia on their own terms.
ReplyDeleteThe superior attitude of the English toward the colonists is clearly evident in they way they treat them. They pretty much forced them into militia groups to fight the French. The colonists obviously did not feel extremely loyal to the King already, and their loyalty probably wasn't increased by these actions by the British.
ReplyDeleteIt was also interesting how the natives tricked the British into thinking they were another tribe, and ambushed them in the woods. It shows how dependent the British were on the natives' knowledge of the land, and how helpless they were navigating the woods. The natives obviously didn't want them there anyway, and took advantage of the British' weakness.
I agree with Ricky, I also beleive that the Britsh basically forced the Colonists and Native American into fighting for them in the French Indian war. It is evident that the colonists and Native Americans do not want to fight by the way in which they accepted their demands. When they agreed they said that they would fight as long as their land was not jeopardized. Thsi shows that they are not pationately into their role in the war as they are into their land, and civilization.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning part of the film, we can already see the different attitudes of the British and colonials. so far, the film has portrayed the British marching across the New York colony to recruit unwilling colonists to fight off the French threat. The local colonists do not want to leave their homes to fight because they feel that thier private land would be vulnerable to attack. However, I feel that the colonists did have a duty to fight the French along with the British. This is because it is the colonist's homeland that is being threatened. Therefore, its not right for the them to stay at home while the British are 3,000 miles from thier home fighting to defend the colonists's land. After all, the colonists are members of British Empire, and they have certain duties to to Empire, just as in any modern country.
ReplyDeleteThe guerrilla warfare used by the Native Americans is seen in the movie when the Mohawks attack the British. The movie also shows how the British followed a strict military order that showed how they were ill-prepared to fight in the war. As we talked about in class, the rigidity of the British both harmed them in this war, and later in the American Revolution.
ReplyDeleteThe movie accuratly portrays the relationship between the British and the colonists. The colonist did not feel extreme loyalty to the King and were annoyed at being coerced into fighting in the war. The scene where the British army must negotiate with the colonist clearly shows the superior position the British held for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI like Lauren's point about how the film shows the relationship between the Indians and British, since no one else brought it up.
Even though we have not seen very much of the film yet, the movie cleary shows Britain's feeling of superiority over the colonists. The British not only demanded the colonists to build a militia to fight for them in the war, but they also expected it to be done quickly and without hesitation. Although we read about the relationship between Britain and the colonists in the textbook, we did not truly see how the colonists and the British treated each other. Visual interpretations such as movies provide discriptions that textbooks usually lack.
ReplyDeleteI believe this film realistically portrays the relationship between the British and the colonists and Native Americans. Just like the textbook described, the British were very cold and arrogant toward the colonists and Native Americans, and viewed them as inferior. As for the colonists and Native Americans, they viewed the English as extremely arrogant, condiscending, and manipulative people.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the movie it shows a clear description of how the British treated the colonists. The British wanted to get away with treating the colonists like dirt and demanding respect. This hypocritical thinking made the colonists angry. Which is probably one of the reasons they were so skeptical to go fight. If they felt they were respected and had a good reason to fight for a country they loved and believed in they would. However, they came to despise England because of how they were treated and they had no reason to fight for someone who if, and when, they made it out alive would just make their lives miserable.
ReplyDeleteI think that many previous comments have exaggerated the relations between the colonials and the Royal British Army. The British did not treat the colonials like dirt, but relations were not smooth. The colonials are at fault for this just as much as the British. During a war, they cannot expect to lounge around thier homes while the British fight the war for them. As I said before, the colonials had to do thier part as well. For example, if all the colonial militias completely deserted, the war would have been made much more difficult and could have even resulted in a French conquest of thier lands. Therefore, the colonists should be more willing to help the British effort to defend THIER lands.
ReplyDeleteThe colonists did eventually form a militia, on the terms that they could return home if their farm lands became endangered. However, when the time came, the domineering British refused, going back on the agreement and threatening deserters. This is a perfectly clear example of the British attitude of superiority over the colonists. Whether or not the colonists chose to fight was inconsequential, as they would be forced to do so anyway. Although the colonists lived on the land, the British still owned it. They exploited the colonists for their own profit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joe because I think that the movie over exagerated the relationship between the colonists and the British. Though the British treated the milita like they were subordinate and as Lauren said they exploited the colonists for their own profit. Guerilla warfare was a main reasons that the Britsh lost the war and another war in the future. Their stubborness to stay in organized lines led to the loss of many troops and to their downfall.
ReplyDeleteThis movie seems to depict the French and Indian War quite accurately in terms of relationships. From the very start of the movie, it is evident that the British expect subordination and obedience from the colonists. They expect the colonists to completely loyal to the king and form their own militia on behalf of the king's orders. This method of forcing them to fight probably is not as effective as having the colonists themselves be willing to fight. Had the British not treated the colonists condescendingly from the start, the colonists may have had more will power to fight and win on the battlefield.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the British unfairly treated the colonists and that they felt superior to them. The British never should have expected the colonists to fight in the war just to "serve the king." The colonists had their own lives and families to think about. They were not solely obligated to Britain and the king. However, I don't think that so many colonists should have stubbornly refused to fight. Like Joe said, the war was not just Britain's, but the colonists' as well. The war took place on the colonists' turf, and they should have been willing to defend their land. Although the British mistreated the colonists, the colonists are partially to blame for the war struggle as well.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the issue brought up by Joe about how the colonists should take some responsibility in the war to defend their lands instead of putting up such harsh resistence to the British requests. However, the British should have addressed this issue in a calmer or more pleasant manner, as not to have repelled the colonists with their superior mentalities alone. In my opinion, if the British had done this, the colonists would be more eager to consider the requests to fight in the war.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, the methods of warfare are clearly depicted in the movie, just as we saw Mr. O acting them out in class. The British's rigid fighting lines were the reason for their failure, while the colonists' guerrilla warfare tactics gave them leeway in the many ways they could attack the British army. An example of the successful methods of the colonists was the scene where they were yelling in the woods and came out attacking from both sides. This image was extremely effective, in terms of putting our discussion with a visual, because it was clear to see exactly how their attacks and mobility aided their success.
ReplyDeleteAs Nicole said, this movie clearly depicts the obvious differences in fighting styles during the French and Indian War, but it was the Native Americans who displayed guerrilla warfare, not the colonists. The Indians' guerrilla warfare was clearly more effective than the British's rigid fighting style because the Indians managed to kill many British soldiers despite being outnumbered. The confused manner in which the British reacted to the spontaneous Huron attack shows how unprepared the British were when confronted by guerrilla warfare. Also, the Indians didn't possess modern weaponry like the British, so that rules out superior weapons as a reason for the Indians' effective fighting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ricky and Tyler, the movie clearly shows the relationship between the colonists and the British. The scene in the beggining of the movie shows how the British forced the colonists to fight for them.
ReplyDeleteI think the movie shows the difference between the British miltary and the Indians it shows the "gorilla warfare" that we discussed in class.
ReplyDeleteoops I meant to say the Indians, thanks Tracy!
ReplyDeleteI think the most important military aspect of this movie, which many people already discussed, is the contrast between the rigid English fighting system and the guerilla tactics of the Indian tribes. One thing that we discussed in class, which really aided the Indians, was their home-field advantage. The Indians' knowledge of the terrain made their ambushes successful against the British army.
ReplyDeleteThe movie portrayed the tactics of both sides of the War. It demonstrated the fighting systems of both the English and the Indians. It showed how Europeans fights battles differently then the Indians and how different tactics work in different situations.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tyler, I too enjoyed how exhilarating and still realistically the battle scenes were portrayed. They accurately showed the British "march and shoot" on command strategy, and the Native Americans guerilla warfare tactics.
ReplyDeleteThe loyalty to the crown I think is really the whole reason the British troops seem to be so incredulous at the colonials, who are portrayed as pressed into service but want instead to protect their families and home from threats of an Indian invasion.
ReplyDeleteThe British military just happened to bring a European style of battle that was highly ordered and regimented to engage against the French, who during the battle at Fort William Henry showed they also had similar complicated protocol and procedure. It was the Indians in the Last of the Mohicans that were portrayed as the seperate and unpredictable force, they had their own way of doing things, and that was equal parts exploited to throw a wrench in both sides plans during the French and Indian War, and used to turn the tide of battle. So far in the movie though, it seems the Hurons (especially in the ambush after the British troops surrendered Fort William Henry) showed the superiority of gorilla tactics in their massacre of the English there.
I agree with Nicole. The movie precisely depicts how the British and French soilders fought, just like how we learned in class. Watching each of thier fighting styles in the movie clearly shows thier stengths and weaknesses in battle. While the British are organized, they lack fundemental defensive strategy skills. On the other hand, the French used the battlefield to thier advantage, hiding behind bushes and rocks for surprise attacks. However, in the end, they were merely outnumbered.
ReplyDeleteThe subtle yet harsh insults the Brtisih officers give to the colonial militia show thier disrepect for the colonists. When the colonits tell the British general that they cannot leave thier wives and children at home because they will be attacked, the British are outraged that the colonits would question thier authority. This directly shows how unimportant the British thought of the colonists. As we talked about in class, this key theme of disrepect would eventually lead to the Revolutionary War.
ReplyDeleteTowards the conclusion of the film, the British-American relationship is just as rocky, and it's not helped when Colonel Munro refuses to let the Americans return to their homes as they had been promised before. This shows how little respect the British had for the colonists' personal interests, and that they only saw them as lesser servants of the British Empire, but not actually citizens. And, as many other people pointed out, the Native Americans in the film made use of guerrilla war tactics, and were easily able to defeat the British lines.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tracy's straightforward analysis of the successful Native American guerrilla warfare against the British soldier's use of organized lines. What she said about their weapons was also true and insightful.
ReplyDeleteThe British did not once insult the colonists. In the instance when the colonists wanted to leave the fort, in the middle of a siege, to tend to thier families, they would have left the British heavily outnumbered and ultimately jeopardize the war effort. The colonists can't have everything thier way, especially in a war situation. Plus, I don't think a couple of colonists with guns would have made any difference in defending against Indian raiding parties. Anyway, the only reason why the British were unhappy with the colonists was because of thier stubborn refusals to help fight against people threatening thier land. Many of the colonists were expecting that they would not have to help at all and have the British fight the war for them. The colonists should have been more willing to support a war that directly threatened thier well being.
ReplyDeleteAs to the fighting tactics, they were generally accurate with the British and French using European fighting methods. However, the natives used guerilla warfare to occasionally ambush British soldiers, but I do not think these Indian ambushes would have done enough to largely affect the war's outcome.
I think that the movie very accuratly portrayed the military fighting strategies. In class we discussed how the British fought very methodically and basically lining up to be shot and that is exactly what happened. They marched in straight lines and then when they were attacked they went everywhere and fought the people down but they march in striaght lines not strategically fighting and hiding from the enemies.
ReplyDeleteThe British forcing the colonists to fight, and the colonists hesitiation, shows their weak relationship. The colonists wanted to make their own independent decisions. Later on, this would case the Revolutionary War.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alexis in that the movie shows the correct fighting strategies each side actually used. The English lined up, just to be shot down in an orderly fashion. Just like their bright red uniforms, their lineup was "pretty" but ultimately a disadvantage in actual fighting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joe about the relationships between the the colonials and The British Army. The relationship is clearly there but were much exaggerated in the film. The relationship between The British and colonists begin to become bitter when Munro breaks his promise to the colonists and no longer allows them to settle back to their homes. I also agree with Nicole. When the Hurons attacked the British it was a an excellent visual to what we had learned in class about guerrilla warfare. It showed how persistent The British were about maintaining order,and how it led to the Indians defeating them.
ReplyDeleteThe movie also began to show the relationship between the British and the French during the battle at Fort William Henry. Their fighting tactics were very similar to each other, compared to the British and Indians. They both wore expensive uniforms and represented their country's colors. They both stood in lines and used more advanced weapons such as cannons and certain guns. Their battle was more organized than the one between the British and Hurons.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brianna on the relationship between the British and French. They were very similiar in their fighting styles, but they also both believed in negotiating. In the movie it shows how the two forces fought each other, but also how they were willing to come to an agreement to end the fighting.
ReplyDeleteDay one:
ReplyDeleteBritish commanders are surprised to see their general's bartering with the colonials when discussing the establishment of a militia. Normally, they would have expected orders to be followed with no question. Additionally, the colonists express reluctance to join the fight for king and country. This shows how their respect for foreign authority is already slipping. However, they do agree to fight, but only to protect their lands, not the crown's power.
Day two:
ReplyDeleteHawkeye brings news that the colonists' homes have been raided by a war party. The British dishonor their agreement to relieve the militia, when they refuse to let the colonists leave the fort. The militia captain then tells his friends that when British laws no longer serve the people, they are no longer fit to govern. This principal would become one of the key reasons for the revolution. The Declaration of Independence even directly stated that people have the responsibility to revolt against a government that doesn't serve the people's interest.
i disagree with Joe H, i believe the colonists were insulted by the british, the british army always talked about the colonists as inferior to that of an englishman. also it was that disrespect that drove the colonists towards the revolutionary war.
ReplyDeletethe scene where magua and the indians use their gurrila tactics to break the peace treaty with the french, it shows how the british used a gentlemanly style of fighting. they stood in lines and got shot at. the indians however ducked and fired at will. these stratgies were later used by the colonist to win the revoloution
ReplyDeleteanother scene of the movie shows the french army and the british army signing a peace treaty after killing each other for days. this accuratly shows the british fighting style as a gentlemans thing to do.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ricky's idea of the way the British viewed warfare, that it must be done with dignity, especially surrender and death. The fact that the British spent enough money to provide uniforms that represented their nation with pride portrays what their priorities were in warfare. The French somewhat agreed with this style of fighting, in the fact that they also used traditional military formations instead of the more practical guerilla fighting. However, the French adapted to the situation in the New World by taking advantage of their relationship with the Native Americans, while the English had to force the hesitant colonists to fight on their side.
ReplyDeleteAlso, one of the main themes of the movie is the relationship between the British and their colonists. The movie accurately depicts the sense of domination the British armies displayed against the colonists, acting with harshness against their hesitance. I feel that it was understandable for the colonists to be hesitant to join the war, despite the fact that they feel a sense of ownership to their land and should be defending it. These colonists had to experience great hardships in setting up a new life in the New World, and learning to rely only their own families for every form of support. Hesitance towards giving up the life that they spent so much effort in building and risking the well-being of their entire family should have been handled sympathetically by the British, rather than the condescension we witnessed in the movie
ReplyDeleteAnother major relationship that this movie highlights is between the British and the local Native American tribes, including the Mohicans and the Hurons. The Huron tribe, allied with the French, are looked down upon not only because they are Britain's military enemy, but also because the Native American lifestyle is criticized by the British. When one member of the Huron tribe, a white boy that was adopted by the Indians, establishes a relationship with one of the British general's young daughters, we see that they are reluctant to make their relationship public. This portrays the fact that the European forces, even the French, treat the Indians with disdain and would not respect any type of relationship between the different ethnicities, and that the French are only taking advantage of the Indian's military resources and knowledge. Also, since Hawkeye doesn't think it smart to make their relationship public within his tribe, it becomes apparent that the Indians view the Europeans in the same way.
ReplyDeleteContrary to some of the answers above, I believe that the Native American tribes did have a significant affect on the war and could have possibly changed the outcome. The Indians were very familiar with the land and could navigate it easily, unlike the French and the British, which made them of great resource to the French. Also, it was mostly because of the guerrilla tactics used by the Indians that gave the French the win at Fort William Henry. Though the British did eventually win the war, the Indians made that outcome much more difficult and unlikely.
ReplyDeleteIsha brought up good points and examples regarding the relationship between the Europeans and Indians that were not mentioned before.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Tracey and Isha. I liked how Tracey stated that the various Indian tribes had big affects on the war and its outcome. The Indians were essential for both the British and French forces but mainly the French because they needed to somehow match Britain's huge forces. I would definitly say that the Indians had an influence over the outcome of the war and agree with Tracey that they could have possibly changed it.
ReplyDeleteThe last part of the movie that we saw in class really focused on the military aspect of the French and Indian War. Both styles of fighting were shown in each of the bloody battles; especially the one where the Hurons ambushed the British forces. In this battle, the Hurons demonstrated guerilla warfare tactics while the British stuck to there strict orderly lines of fighting. Also, I agree with Brianna's comment on how the relationship between the French and British was further shown at the battle at fort william henry. Both european forces are similar in their styles of fighting and proud, expensive uniforms.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carly, the movie accurately portrayed the different fighting styles; the gorilla warfare of the Indians and the less strategic line style of the English.
ReplyDeleteOf course I agree with Briana and Joe when they were saying how the relationship of the colonists to the British was exaggerated and there wasn't so much discontent between the two parties before the war. However, this is Hollywood so as much as I think the movie does a great job depicting the main events of the war there was of course historical inaccuracies, such as the Colonial/British relationship, because it was a movie meant to make money and produced in Hollywood for entertainment not for a historical and informative education school film.
ReplyDeleteI still hold firm to my opinion that the colonists should have complied better with helping in the war. I think that the colonists were being unreasonable to outright deny British requests to help defend thier lands. This is the same today, if we outright refused the draft, there would be consequences. The tactics of geurilla warfare by the Indians did influence the use of that strategy during the American Revolution, but they did not use it on a large scale that it completely affected who won the war. Not to mention that the French won the American Revolution for them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joe that it was unreasonable for the colonists to refuse the British requests to stay. As subjects to the crown this is definitely a seditious act. However, that is exactly their point. Beyond who was actually right, the colonists decided that they no longer wanted to listen to British demands. They would rather take matters into their own hands, instead of have it handled by generals from half way around the world. This idea of making decisions their own ways would later be translated into key reasons for the revolution. Whether they would be better off on their own, or under imperial guidance, the colonists still wanted independence.
ReplyDeleteJoe, I have to disagree with what you have said about the British army's relationship with the colonists. You say that it was unreasonable for the colonists to refuse the British requests to stay, yet the British had made a prior agreement to allow the colonists to leave to protect their homes. Yes, the colonists have an obligation to aid the British in the war, but this should be heavily overshadowed by the colonists' right to protect their family and property. Also, you mentioned that the colonists and the British are fighting together for "their" land. In reality, the land is not the colonists at all. The British viewed the American colony as merely a cash cow, and even after the war, the British continued to exploit the colonies economically with high taxes and trade restrictions. You act as though the British treated the colonists as equals, when in fact, the British were bullies to the weaker colonists.
ReplyDeleteIf every colonist deserted the British Army, then the outcome of the war would most likely have taken a turn for the worse. The French would have outnumbered the British even more, allowing them to potentially completely assault the colonies and cause greater civilian damage. The best way to protect the colonies and its people would have been to help the British war effort, rather than to desert into unorganised tiny bands of militia that would probably be exterminated at the hands of any Indian raiding party. Plus, the agreement was made by two different British generals, and was very unofficial. The colonies are the land of the colonists because it is thier homeland and they have a duty to defend it. The only reason the British had issues with the colonists was because they were unwilling to provide any help to defend the colonies. Whatever the outcome of the war, it would affect the colonists the most, so they need to do thier part as well.
ReplyDeleteI liked how Joe was assertive about his belief that the colonist should have been more actively involved, however I disagree with his statement. I believe that if people are not motivated to go to war then it is not their responsibility to fight the war for their mother country. In addition, the war resembled a strife between the two warring European powers, and because the colonists were not being treated with respect by the British, why should it be their primary responsibility to risk their communities and lives for a mother country that looks down upon them.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Joe because they needed to fight for thie own homeland. The colonists were not only necessary in the war effort in defeating the French but they also needed to protect their homes in the colonies. And as Joe said since they were fighting over their homeland they were obliged to defend it. I also noticed while we finished the movie that the Indians could understand French which truly shows that the Indians were strong allies and trading partners with the French.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carly on this one. As we have learned in class, the colonists were not that thrilled to be partaking in a war over something they had no control over. It was the British parliament who told the colonists they had to put pressure on the French to the West. The colonists really had no choice but to enter this war. I disagree with Joe as he said it is the duty of the colonists to defend their homeland. Yes, they probably would have put pressure on theFrench anyways as they were running out of room for the rising population, but I don't think they should've been forced to risk their lives over a matter that didn't even concern them. The colonists only ever benefitted in a way after the war and even then, they were being taxed constantly.
ReplyDeleteToday while watching the movie, the first thing i noticed was how similar the Indian language was to the French language. This is one example of how the French really impacted the lives of the Indians. Another thing I noticed was the motivation of the Indians. This was not their war to be fought yet they risked their lives for their close allies, the French, which I thought was remarkable even though it was all for trade. Risking ones life for a country just for trade options seems to be very brave and noble of the Indians
Carlee, I doubt that the Indians saw anything particularly endearing about the French that made them better suited to cooperate with. I think the Hurons portrayed in the Movie very much had their own way of doing things, the French and the English were 'the white men', that had their own unique ways of doing things, most definitely not the Huron way. The language I think is far from similar. Similarly towards Joe, I think it's more along the lines of the Colonists more concerned with the defense of their own homes, especially the frontier settlements. The British regiments as we learned in the book sent by Pitt surely would've overwhelmed the French and Indians eventually. The colonials lost many lives during the battles, but in my opinion the sheer size of the British regiments sent to America would've won out in the end.
ReplyDeleteAlexis made a good point about the fighting tactics of the Native Americans versus the British. The Natives' use of guerrilla tactics proved more effective in more than one instance in the film. Their knowledge of the land served them well. Using the woods as cover they could easily and stealthily sneak up on the British and attack mercilessly. On the other hand, the British maintained a certain level of order that seemed irrational in the sudden onslaught of natives, almost calm in the moments where their lives could be taken at any second. They lined up, in formation, and took turns firing, almost like lining up to die. The contrasting tactics had different levels of success in different situations, but were meant to serve a similar purpose.
ReplyDeleteJust as everyone else, I too agree that the British were disrespectful towards the colonies as they disregarded the colonies' opinions. Many of the colonists did not want to fight and partake in the French and Indian War- however, they were forced by the British to. This act of supremacy would later drive the relationship betweent eh colonists and Britain further and further apart.
ReplyDeleteIn this movie, we learn about the different war tactics that were used, especially guerrilla warfare used by the Indians. The British tended to have a strict, organized military while the Indians, while smaller in number, still managed to beat them successfully because of their ambush attacks. They had the advantage as they knew their homeland. This also goes to show that spending a lot of money on your military doesn't guarantee success as Britain had more modern weapons than the Indians yet it proved to be unsuccessful when many of the British soldiers died.
ReplyDeleteJoe's comments were very eye-opening. I guess that the relationship between Britain and the colonists were a BIT exaggerated in the movie although it showed the colonists' frustration. I also agree to some extent that the colonists should have been more willing to fight as they were fighting for their land.
ReplyDelete