gaze at the stars’ tuxedoes and gowns, and waitimpatiently for a memorable moment – a naked streaker racing across the stage or acontroversial acceptance speech.
Highlights why people view the Oscars, they want a performance and entertainment. Shows how culturally Americans put importance on celebrities and how Americans connect over them (through those memorable moments that get referenced for years).
lockbusters loaded with high-tech special effects, sequels, andremakes of earlier movies, foreign films, and even old TV shows.
the attention grabbing techniques didn't work for Paramount in the 50s and it doesn't seem to be working today. This reading enforced my opinion that people want movies that reflect current issues and evoke conversation
Not until the end of the 1970s did popular culture begin to treat the Vietnam Warveteran as a victim of the war rather than a madman produced by the war.
Displays people's poor views on the Vietnam war, the soldiers were never the heroes of the movies
Three major war films – Little Big Man, Patton, and M∗A∗S∗H –reexamined the nineteenth-century Indian wars, World War II, and the Korean Warin light of America’s experience in Vietnam.
During such a pivotal time in American politics where many were looking for a change in the American ways, it makes sense that out of it would come films that look at American history in more critical ways
Hollywood rad-ically shifted focus and began to produce an increasing number of anti-establishmentfilms, laced with social commentary, directed at the growing youth market.
I wonder if this contributed or was a response to hippie culture
popular family melodramas of the 1940s and 1950s reveal apattern of deeply troubled family relationships. These films depicted sexual frustra-tion, anxious parents, domineering mothers, alienated children, insensitive or fretfulfathers, defiant adolescents, and loveless marriages. In part this obsession with thetheme of marriage and family life “as a kind of hell”
I wonder if these more accurately reflected the family life of the time. I wonder if they did and the notion of the Nuclear family just pressured people into those kinds of loveless marriages that caused family problems. At the same time, these problems could have always existed but only began to be discussed during this period
a world of obsession, alienation, corruption, deceit, blurredidentity, paranoia, dementia, weak men, cold-blooded femmes fatales, and, inevitably,murder. Its style consisted of looming close-ups, oblique camera angles, and crowdedcompositions that produced a sense of entrapment. The films’ narratives were rarelystraightforward; they contained frequent flashbacks and voiceovers
Allowed cinema to expand thematically and as a medium
In 1966, the film industryabandoned the Production Code, replacing it with a film rating system which is still inforce
The start of more risque movies that probably reflected American culture more because it was less about what the government wanted and more about what the people found entertaining
Naturally, men scared to make pictures about the American Negro,men who only in the last year allowed the word Jew to be spoken in a picture, whotook more than ten years to make an anti-fascist picture, these are frightened menand you pick frightened men to frighten first. Judas goats, they’ll lead the others toslaughter for you
I really like this quote. Movies had the power to make positive change and humanize groups of people that were otherwise not even talked about. Without a need for escapism, plain movies are useless. The people wanted movies to spark conversation and represent the whole of America, not just one group of people.
Conservatives told HUAC thatHollywood was littered with “Commies.” Walt Disney even recounted attempts bysubversive employees to have Mickey Mouse follow the party line
I wonder why they believed this. Though it makes sense that HUAC would go against cultural influences first.
During its existence, theBureau evaluated individual film scripts to assess how they depicted war aims, theAmerican military, the enemy, the Allies, and the home front
How did this decrease censorship like Roosevelt seemed to want?
at least twenty pictures in the last year designed to drug the reason ofthe American people, set aflame their emotions, turn their hatred into a blaze, fillthem with fear that Hitler will come over here and capture them.
Beginning of movies being used as one of the main forms of purposeful influence and propaganda
The code prohibited nudity, profanity, white slavery, miscegenation,“excessive and lustful kissing,” and “scenes of passion” that “stimulate the lower andbaser element.” It also forbade Hollywood from glorifying crime or adultery. Toenforce the code, the Breen Office was empowered to grant or withhold a seal ofapproval. Without a seal, a movie could not be played in the major theater chains
Censorship of art probably contributed to a mass commercialized culture
During the Great Depression, Hollywoodplayed a valuable psychological and ideological role, providing reassurance and hopeto a demoralized nation.
I always think about Shirley Temple, who was the biggest star of the Great Depression. It makes sense she would be at this time because of her bubbly and adorable personality. Her movies would have some darker themes but always with hope and a happy ending.
hese high-classtheaters had specific show times and well-groomed, uniformed ushers enforcingstandards of decorum
this is what movie theaters resemble today. But with less affordable prices, they've been removed as a third place where people can gather. I wonder if that has decreased their cultural impact.
By the early 1920s, Hollywood had become the world’s film capital.
I wonder what impacts having a consolidated place for cinema had on the medium
he silent screen offered vividglimpses of urban tenements and ethnic ghettoes.
The general public seeing these films probably helped increase sympathy and contributed towards pushed for equality. Before, many wouldn't even have known about the conditions of these people's lives but movies allowed them to be fully humanized in the public's eye.
Yet there can be no doubt that many silent films dealt at least obliquely with thedominant issues of the time.
Probably contributed to America's progressive culture and helped open doors for conversation
aramount, Warner Bros., RKO, 20th Century-Fox, and Loew’s (MGM) – and the “Little Three”
its astonishing how many of these are still companies today, it really displays the power of massive corporations to sustain influence over multiple generations
bove all, he used close-ups,lighting, editing, and framing and other cinematic techniques to build suspense andother emotions and to focus the audience’s attention on individual performers.
many of these techniques are exclusive to cinema, the development of them set cinema apart from plain entertainment and established itself as an art form.
This was also a period of intense artistic and technical innovation, as pioneeringdirectors like David Wark Griffith and others created a new language of film andrevolutionized screen narrative
supports the statement that advancements in technology increase creativity because people have access to more mediums
Nevertheless, the movies attracted unprecedented audiences as a result of their lowadmission prices, “democratic” seating arrangements, convenient time schedules(films were shown again and again), and lack of spoken dialogue, which allowednon-English-speaking immigrants to enjoy films
I wonder if this type of audience contributed to the popularity of films representing the poorer class or being about "underdogs."
In 1894, the Lumi`ere brothers introduced theportable motion picture camera and projector.
The process of being able to create movies, from the ability to take a mere photo to this was extremely rapid. This supports the idea of capitalism breeding innovation because everyone saw what a success this form of entertainment would be if made possible.
he pictures displayed by the Phenakistoscopeor flip books could not be viewed by more than one person at a time
Highlights how entertainment is fundamentally a cultural thing and naturally meant to be shared and viewed among groups of people.
The young,in particular, increasingly sought pleasure, escape, and the freedom to experiment inmixed-sex relationships in relatively inexpensive amusement parks, dance halls, urbannightclubs, and, above all, nickelodeons and movie theaters, free of parental control.
I wonder what tensions came between generation from the stark change in culture
They broke down the isolation of local neighborhoods and communitiesand ensured that for the first time all Americans, regardless of their class, ethnicity, orlocality, shared standardized information and entertainment
What were the consequences of mass culture? Did it break down cultural norms within isolated neighborhoods?
For purchases to be promoted, observeda trade journal in 1890, a consumer “must be aroused, excited, terrified.”
The excitement of consumerism
By 1900, the nation’s largest magazine, the Ladies’ Home Journal, reached 850,000subscribers – more than eight times the readership of Scribner’s or Harper’s
Housewives became specifically marketed towards as consumerism developed in America because they were especially in need of entertainment. From this came other cultural norms such as women shaving because companies realized they were a mostly untouched market before. Many things began marketed towards men because they were primarily in control of the money.
fashion pages, and sports pages.
The beginning of entertainment being catered to groups of individuals. Media has become even more individualized modern day.
ommercialized forms ofentertainment.
Because it is commercialized, I again wonder if it is a true reflection of American culture
Coney Island stressed the emerging consumer-oriented val-ues of extravagance, gaiety, abandon, revelry, and instant gratification
In response to the negative effects of capitalism, companies let the poorer classes participate in consumerism and so increased the idea of the "American Dream" where if you work hard enough you can consume all the right and exciting things.
the condemnation of sissies and stuffed shirts, and thegrowing popularity of aggressively masculine Western novels like Owen Wister’s TheVirginian. Toward the end of the century, the New Woman – personified by the tall,athletic Gibson Girl – supplanted the frail, submissive Victorian woman as a culturalideal
It makes sense that America would go in this masculine direction considering many were the decendents of frontier men, farmers, and factory workers. America was always built on the ideas of personal freedom and exploration. The culture of the Victorian era never seemed to fit America in my opinion.
vibrant, commercialized mass culture that provided all Americans with standardizedentertainment and information
it makes sense that with the birth of modern consumerism, before there came about every product imaginable, that people would consume much of the same things such as entertainment. From that would naturally come a more cohesive American culture than we have today.
popular culture forrelease
Again, we see this has increased present day. On top of the TV shows and movies people keep up with and reference day to day, there's now development of pop culture through YouTube, TikTok influencers, and memes.
Stress, overstimulation, the frantic pace of modern life, and emotionalrepression produced debilitating bouts of depression or attacks of anxiety andnervous prostration. Fears of “over-civilization” pervaded late nineteenth-centuryAmerican culture
America is seeing another wave of such fears with the development of technology into our daily life and the amount of importance we give virtual reality.
A mixture of art, business, and popular entertainment, the movies pro-vide a host of insights into Americans’ shifting ideals, fantasies, and preoccupations.
Movies obviously do not reflect the ideals of all Americans and depending on who they were made by, can reflect only the ideals of a minor piece of America. When it comes to culture, such as fashion, to say that it reflects the culture of the time diminishes the impact movies have on creating cultural trends. For example, the use of "google" as a verb first came from a TV show. I wonder how historians distinguish what is truly a reflection of culture.
Charlie Chaplin, the starving prospector in The Gold Rush, eating hisshoe, treating the laces like spaghetti
The author seems to be writing for an older audience. The references used are extremely old but iconic for their time. This article isn't as relevant to today's America, maybe because there's so many movies that few reach that iconic status old movies used to.
Hamilton’s compromise has perhaps been easier forconservatives to swallow than it has for those on the left.
This makes sense considering Hamilton ultimately gives conservatives what they want- a patriotic story. It doesn't give the left what they want- historical stories about people of color.
America was, until this past generation, a white coun-try designed for ourselves and our posterity. It is our creation, it isour inheritance, and it belongs to us.
This quote irked me to read considering this country was built on the backs of black slaves and through the displacement and genocide of Native Americans.
The musical has united ratherthan divided; expanded the circle of who can claim foundationalAmerican myths rather than changing who is in and who is out
I do think that the unification of America is extremely important and the musical hold great value for doing this. I wonder if there are ways to tell a more accurate story and still not isolate certain groups of Americans
ffirm a celebratory narrativethat ignores America’s sins
Some would argue that Hamilton does do this
Instead, he wanted to present them as complexpeople with foibles and human flaws, a fact the show highlightswith its portrayal of Hamilton’s philandering, pride, and ambition;Aaron Burr’s envy and duplicity; George Washington’s self-doubt;and Thomas Jefferson’s strutting hypocrisy
In my opinion, this doesn't challenge the patriotic narrative but more deepens it by humanizing the founding fathers and building a stronger connection between them and present Americans. I've seen it myself through the glorification of the characters of the founding fathers by the Hamilton fanbase.
Using the vernacular stylesof young black and Latinx Americans to tell the founding storyoffers a similar invitation.
I really appreciate this aspect of the musical. People are often against what they're not familiar with. It's important to represent not only POC but also their culture and vernaculars.
Conservatives who have balked at the leveling influence of socialhistory, which since the 1970s has led historians to focus on every-day people, the study of groups, and inevitably the way that sys-temic or structural forces affect patterns of opportunity, have alsoapproved of the way the musical tells America’s story
This is more evidence that Hamilton didn't challenge the patriotic narrative as much as people would like to think. History is mainly about these things that Conservatives are against.
a common conservative narrative thatrace and ethnicity are no bar to success for those willing to workhard. “Talent outweighs everything else”
This is a false narrative of the American dream, only white men of the time had access to the ability to "be a new man" and nowadays the American dream no longer exists the way it used to.
mmigrants,we get the job done,
I really like this. Not often are the White immigrants of Early American history flat out stated to be immigrants. It really shows Americans how deeply this country was built on immigration
The telling and teaching of early American history, heinsisted, “must be more than an exercise in knocking rich, whitedudes down a peg.”
I feel like this is a victim mindset many conservatives have about revised history, they don't see it as a way to lift POC up but instead a way to knock white people down.
“There’s only so much time you can spend on it [slavery]when there’s no result to it,”
There's only so much time to in a patriotic story where many of the supporting protagonists are slaveowners.
emphasizes the hypocrisy of slavery
Does it? The number one rule of art is to "show, not tell." The production shows no slaves or the impact of slavery on early America, lyrics don't count as emphasizing sometime.
where people of color are portrayed as ownersand shapers of the country from its very beginning
They were, but not in the way of the founding fathers. He is telling a whitewashed version of the history of POC.
The support among conservatives is particularly surprising giventhat Lin-Manuel Miranda has made no secret of his own progres-sive political orientation
It doesn't surprise me at all considering that Hamilton doesn't actually challenge the patriotic view of American history
portray the United States as committed to ideals ofliberty and equality,
Maybe instead of teaching this we can help America to truly become this through teaching these values and how America hasn't fully reached them yet.
histories thatfocus on people of color or class conflict as biased and politicallymotivated.
In my opinion, American History should teach diverse stories because America is diverse. It's not white American history.
“Atlantic triangular trade” rather than the “trans-Atlantic slave trade,”
The dark past of America will be recognized, many of our citizens were affected by it. By promoting propaganda, these school boards will not be kindly reflected upon in the future.
crime wave among a generation of embittered young Americanswho had been taught that “America is a rotten place.”
Then don't teach them that America is a rotten place. Our country's mistakes don't negate our successes and shows a story of growth that will encourage more future growth.
pitting groups of Americans against eachother rather than encouraging a shared sense of identity based onAmerican exceptionalism
In my opinion, teaching more perspectives brings people together because it celebrates how diverse America has always been and makes all students feel seen instead of excluded from the American story.
encourage patriotism and devotion to country
At the cost of not knowing how this nation could benefit from growth
harping on the nation’s failings
Many of the nations successes were only from the perspective of white men, speaking on the nations failings just tells a story from more perspectives
a 1923 law that forbade public schools from usingany textbooks that defamed the founders “or misrepresent[ed] theideals and causes for which they struggled and sacrificed.”
Similar to what Florida and other southern states are trying to do
They representthe shared narrative that serves as the basis for a sense of nationalidentity. They both reflect and aim to impart cultural and politicalvalues
Seems the American goal to teaching U.S. History is to impart patriotic values
cultivate pride in America’s past and highlight the nation’sexceptionalism and continual progress toward greatnes
Teaching America's successes with pride and recognizing the dark past aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Curricula should teach both because the only way to progress is to know the downfalls of the country.
esident Barack Obama calls Hamilton“the only thing” on which he and former Republican vice presidentDick Cheney agree.
Bridges the politcal gaps between patriots on either side, not those who recognize the faults in America
What ideology is being inculcatedby a show like this, at the same time that it engages its audience?
The idea that the past gave people of different races equal opportunity, which this musical portrays to those with little background knowledge of American history, negates the progress that still needs to be made
exposemore people to a very important chapter of our history.
I really dislike this, that Hamilton is treating itself as historically accurate enough to teach students
But is it necessarily a good thing to feel ownership over a celebra-tory, white narrative of the American past? Is it a good thing forpeople of color to feel connected to the story of Hamilton, Wash-ington, Jefferson, Madison, and Burr?
It feels like the impact Hamilton had was indoctrinating Americans of color into the cult of the founding fathers.
it belies the ways in which structuralinequalities block many people of color from achieving the Ameri-can Dream today.
This is a common critique with movies because the American Dream really only exists in productions nowadays. Productions can celebrate the accomplishments of America without presenting a false version of it.
cult of the founders
I like this phrasing and it really does describe how America tends to think of the founding fathers, we glorify them constantly through holidays, productions, and school.
It is hardlysurprising that someone who displays this kind of adoration of afounding father would find it difficult to truly incorporate slaveryinto the story of his life
One can appreciate their political policies and how they helped shaped this country without glorifying them, therefore recognizing their faults in policy and actions.
rief lyrical references as proofthat the play takes slavery seriously
Can't take slavery seriously if they're visually excluded
No one else was in theroom where it happened” completely erases the slaves who wouldhave been in that room serving dinner.
It's hard to make a story where the founding fathers are the protagonists if they're shown as slaveowners, maybe it's time to assign a different protagonist when telling their story.
More pointedly, itis problematic to have black and brown actors stand in for the greatwhite men of the early United States in a play that does not acknowl-edge that the ancestors of these same actors were excluded from thefreedoms for which the founders fought.
I believe this wouldn't be as problematic if it wasn't perpetuating something that already is a misconception of the Founding fathers, most don't even know they were slaveowners. If this was common knowledge then the representation wouldn't be as counterproductive
This is the story of America then, told byAmerica now
Productions reflect the culture of the time they were created more than anything, historians will look back on Hamilton and know our present culture was a diverse one.
while the hip-hop-spouting revolutionariesare all black and Latino
Often movies will higher people of color but have them act as "white", I would argue this is a better way of having a diverse cast because it is also has a diverse style of music from different American and British cultures.
Suchchallenges to the “exclusive past” are absolutely necessary for ourpresent, as we strive to live up to an ideal of all people being equaland create a world in which women’s voices are no longer silencedand Black Lives Matter.
Equality doesn't just mean equality through present actions but equal representation throughout history. People won't believe that they are treated equally unless they feel as seen as white men have been for centuries.
That’s why politicians so often invokethe founders, and why they so frequently quote familiar phrasesfrom the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to drawvague connections to contemporary policy prescriptions.
In reality, the founding fathers disagreed on many policies, they weren't a united front to call to, and the constitution was intended to allow room for change in the country.
Where should power lie, at thefederal level or with state and local governments?
I haven't seen Hamilton but I assume it doesn't bring up this question, which historically was something Alexander Hamilton was extremely passionate about.
After the performance ended, and asPence got up to leave the theater, Brandon Victor Dixon, who hadplayed the role of Aaron Burr that evening, delivered a public pleafrom the stage to the vice president-elect, imploring him to pursueinclusive policies upon taking office. Within hours, President-electDonald Trump tweeted an angry condemnation of the show
More evidence that people will love a production as long as it is exciting, familiar, and doesn't question the audience's beliefs or actions.
TheBook of Negroes portrays an ambiguous American Revolution, onein which spurning the Revolution itself and joining the British canresult in freedom,
Still a story about a strong lead character who gains freedom and speaks her mind. However, this story's lead character isn't a white male and forces the audience to rethink the origins of America, therefore it didn't become popular.
he nation’s founding, while resultingin slow abolition in the North, further entrenched slavery in theSouth and in the nation’s political structure.
England abolished slavery 30 years before America. Early American politicians had no intention on abolishing slavery when it was a large part of the economy.
too closely resemble a history ofcontemporary racial inequality, much less the way that all of Amer-ican society remains implicated in it
If Americans faced how normalized and imbedded slavery was in early American history, we would have to face the dark past of our founding fathers and question the ethos of them, therefore the ethos of our country's constitution and structure.
Loyalists practicallydisappear after independence
Otherwise it wouldn't be a happy story of unity and the origins of America would be more complex and uncomfortable knowing that by taking down one ruler that many were against, the founding fathers put in place an establishment that many Americans were still against.
no one should be able to tell Americanswhat to do
I feel as though this strong sentiment that we've heard all our lives as Americans has translated into an extremely individualistic culture.
Martha Washington named her feral tomcat” forhim, and his capacity to dazzle both Eliza and Angelica Schuylercements his qualifications as a ladies’ man
Shows American's cultural views on what traits a man should have, they should be strong, have unwavering masculinity, and be a womanizer (A ladies' man).
Bad guys, as it turns out, are not manly. Markers of Toryor British deviance in these productions—besides a style-challengedpredilection for bright red jackets almost regardless of occasion—include cowardice, effeminacy, and brutality.
American culture associates masculinity with power, represented by television since it began.
Hollywood blockbuster: thinkbig-star main character, fawning love interest, explosions (the big-ger the better, hopefully involving helicopters or cannons, depend-ing on what is historically appropriate), and a happy ending
Similar to Pocahontas, historical events will be skewed to make a film more marketable. For example, excluding the importance of the loyalists in the American Revolution. If they were fully included, it would make Britain's place as the antagonist much more rocky.
hese four elements have come to shape how the generalpublic increasingly understands the American founding,
Despite differing political views, we are all inclined to want to think well of our country's founding. It also helps commercially for Americans to be patriotic considering all the American flag merch and 4th of July sales.
snooty accents,
I find this wording interesting, most would agree with it but it makes me wonder if prejudice and jokes made by Americans against the British at least partially stems from these productions.
When we tussle over the meanings of the Amer-ican Revolution what we’re really arguing about is what the nation’svalues are, what we think we stand for as a people, and to whom thenation belongs.
I'm sure this is a conflict that exists, however, more of what I've seen is not arguing over what the nation's values are but how we incorporate them into our current politics. Recently, there's also debates over if those original stances and values are outdated
en doesn’t fullybridge our cultural chasms.
I think it's important to note that the political questions of early American History are very different than those of today, there isn't as much for Americans to disagree about because it doesn't have as much relevance to today's political disagreements.
Pocahontas has a conversation in England with her uncle inwhich she says she has made a great many mistakes. “I hopethat some day my people will forgive me.”
it would've been nice to see more character development of Pocahontas and her family, they all seemed extremely underdeveloped for being the focus of the movie.
But when later Smith visits the tribe to whichPocahontas has been banished, once again there are no sub-titles, even though an Indian makes a long speech.
I also noticed this, it puts higher importance on english individual's conversations than Native American conversations.
Smith does not, despite his frequently ex-pressed yearning for a new life, go native
Again, presents that living similarly to Native Americans is simply not an option and the only option there is is what we've been taught
But ultimately, Malick’s view of the Indians as partof the natural world militates against any real possibility ofunderstanding them as inhabiting a separate and differentculture. The Indians merely represent an idealized escapefrom civilization, not an alternative form of it.
I completely agree with this. By putting Native American culture in the past as a utopia outside civilization, we fail to recognize that we can implement many of the same values into present society.
Eventually Pocahontas learns to speak English but herconversation with Smith has little intellectual substance.
I noticed this in the movie. Historically, Pocahontas must have been pretty intelligent to wield so much political influence for her age. In the movie, she is extremely quiet and doesn't show intelligence as a character trait.
Inescapably we associate the Indians with the natural world
Rarely is there focus on how Native Americans did things better than the Western world outside of their relationship with the environment.
Pocahontas’s body has thegently swelling bosom and exaggeratedly small waist of aBarbie doll, but her face is more Asiatic, with high cheek-bones and almond-shaped eyes;
Often seen in entertainment is that the "good side" are beautiful people and the "bad side" are ugly people. This is of course by Western beauty standards and promotes those beauty standards as well as the idea that someone outside of that standard is not only less beautiful, but not as good of a person.
Sowhereas the two white men, Smith and Rolfe, receive thebenefit of Pocahontas’s physical charms, legitimated by hersupposed rank, Pocahontas and her people receive in returnsomething altogether more estimable, the blessings of whitecivilization.
This shows the importance in questioning retellings of history for the purpose of entertainment. Entertainment is geared towards a specific audience and will skew whatever needed to appeal to the audience. This creates a single story of history that often makes people feel as though their group is fundamentally better than the other.
Historianslearn from one another and build on each other’s work to get an ever clearer, fuller picture of thepas
History is no different than science in the sense that collaboration helps build new ideas that can lead to solutions. Someone may not understand how a document fits into history contextually because they just haven't had the right idea yet.
In reality, historians often focus onthe big picture, with an eye to the particular details emerging from the record that illuminatewhat happened, and why
The purpose of history is not to learn about one specific job, person, etc. from the past which documents can teach but instead to learn about those things for the purpose of understanding the whole context of the era and place. This help historians better understand culture and causes of events.
tory is a profession for which scholars spend yearslearning crucial skills and absorbing bodies of work that help them to interpret the past
I can imagine it is hard and takes a lot of contextual knowledge of the era to be able to read a document and interpret it how someone of the time would interpret it, not through modern lenses.
but rather as an ideal field for thinking long and hard aboutimportant questions
I agree with this, history can be a useful tool to teach children about common philosophical and political questions and help them to develop their own opinions based on evidence. In turn, engaging in history teaches students critical thinking skills.
hilenostalgia conjures an uncomplicated golden age that saves us the trouble ofhaving to think about the past
May be referencing the 50s-60s America which is often looked back upon as the golden age of America and presented strictly as such, but it's always more complex than that.
Contingency can be an unsettling idea—so much so that people in the pasthave often tried to mask it with myths of national and racial destiny
People don't like contingency, hence the psychological tactics used in Pocahontas to make the events seem inevitable. The belief that historical events were caused by destiny is dangerous and has been used by white supremacist groups to justify their narratives.
but history classrooms are at their mostdynamic when teachers encourage pupils to evaluate the contributions ofmultiple factors in shaping past events
Teaches students that events are rarely ever simple, with one factor causing it. Also teaches students how certain factors can interact with each other and helps them to spot patterns in history.
Moreover, each asks studentsto weave together a variety of sources and assess the reliability of each beforeincorporating them into a whole.
Not all sources are an equal representation of history, context is important to be able to recognize which sources help add to the historical picture and which ones don't.
hey reassess theirexpectations regarding how time changes
It's important that students don't believe a single story of how history unfolds. Some believe that time changes everything the same, advancements in technology advance places everywhere because it did so in America. This helps people open their minds to all the different possibilities of how time can affect different places.
individuals can make a difference and how personal history changes over timealong with major events
changes in history often come from people, changes in relationships and family dynamics. It's important for students to recognize what role their ways of living shape history.
change over time, causality, context, complexity,and contingency
None of these are dates and names, memorizing facts will not show understanding of history
Pocahontas herselfwas no mere passive figure. In real life, she played a critical mediating role between twocultures. She was what anthropologists and ethnohistorians call a cultural intermedi-ary and interpreter.
this is an interesting and strong thematic story about the power of Native women, often there is no need to distort history it provides interesting stories without help.
Native Americans is bydepicting Indians as the passive victims of an impersonal and inevitable process ofmodernization, or what used to be called “the march of civilization.
This idea also works under the assumption that modernization is better and that the Native Americans were uncivilized.
he Powhatansused mock executions as a symbolic way to incorporate vassals or subordinates intotheir society.
By having them commit an actual execution, it portrayed the Powhatans as more violent than they are.
Pocahontas herself was just 12 to 14 at the time she firstencountered John Smith, not the older teenager depicted in the film
Romanticizing these bloody and horrible periods in history can be dangerous, history can be an extremely useful learning tool when correct.
Early examples include Return of theSecaucus Seven and The Big Chill, both of which use the reunion of a group of friendsto explore issues of aging and memory and the shift in mood from the activist andidealistic 1960s to the more cynical, self-centered 1970s and ’80s
I would love to check out these movies! They seem to use fictional characters to tell a truthful story about that time in history which is what I believe movies should do.
The filmsromanticize the Old South, present Confederates as heroic figures, and reinforce amythology that dominated Americans’ views of race relations until the 1960s: thatslave life was “idyllic” and, unless manipulated by white fanatics, slaves were loyal,docile, ignorant, and childlike
Especially dangerous when film present themselves as historically accurate but are not even thematically true. This can create disdain towards criticisms of the confederacy and leads to the idea that movies can offend viewers. History is a non-discriminatory learning tool, it can't be offensive unless one makes it, in my opinion.
In an effort to offend asfew potential moviegoers as possible
This is the issue with movies telling history, they can never make it accurate for fear of offending people. If they wouldn't do that, people would find that history is nothing to be offended over but can instead lead to mature conversations.
Walt Disney has been a corporation historians love to hate
i can imagine that the commercialization and rewriting of history that Disney has done would be frustrating for historians