Re: Back to the Movie: Part XIIV

Posted by Katja on February 28, 1998 at 15:07:11:

In Reply to: Re: Back to the Movie: Part XIIV posted by Bill R on February 28, 1998 at 13:54:16:

Thank you Bill!

You make it sound so...hmm...smooth - and convincing, indeed.
Why didn't I thought this...It's so bright and clear. Must be that I'm an 'outsider', having no part whatsoever in that history, not living with it like you guys are.

I know about the farming/trading frontier and that "the forts of the French king are so large that you can still hunt under their very walls". The question still remains, I think. Even though the movie suggest that the colonies would have been better without the British and your explanation about ( I just love this word!) the differences between British/French approach to colonization does include the idea of French colonization being somehow better than the British. Maybe it is so. If LOTM underlines the strong American individuality it can't possibly suggest that French (tyranny?)is any better than British (tyranny?). I mean if the ultimate end is (of course) the independent United States of America. Let alone when it comes to the natives, I don't think it would have made any difference, French or British.

Now I'm aware of that we are 'just' talking about a movie. But in that context I'd to say that Mann's approach in this matter is slightly naive, if this (what Bill talked about) is the impression he wanted to gain. (Please, please take pity on me and don't throw all that stuff on me! This is my favorite too, you know, I'm just trying to be analytical here...)We Finns are famous for being impolite and unfriendly...:)

Katja

Follow Ups:

• Re: Back to the Movie: Part XIIV Bill R 15:59:05 2/28/98 (1)
  • Re: Back to the Movie: Part XIIV Myrrh 11:55:47 3/02/98 (0)

Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: Thank you Bill!

: You make it sound so...hmm...smooth - and convincing, indeed.
: Why didn't I thought this...It's so bright and clear. Must be that I'm an 'outsider', having no part whatsoever in that history, not living with it like you guys are.  

: I know about the farming/trading frontier and that "the forts of the French king are so large that you can still hunt under their very walls". The question still remains, I think. Even though the movie suggest that the colonies would have been better without the British and your explanation about ( I just love this word!) the differences between British/French approach to colonization does include the idea of French colonization being somehow better than the British. Maybe it is so. If LOTM underlines the strong American individuality it can't possibly suggest that French (tyranny?)is any better than British (tyranny?). I mean if the ultimate end is (of course) the independent United States of America. Let alone when it comes to the natives, I don't think it would have made any difference, French or British.

: Now I'm aware of that we are 'just' talking about a movie. But in that context I'd to say that Mann's approach in this matter is slightly naive, if this (what Bill talked about) is the impression he wanted to gain. (Please, please take pity on me and don't throw all that stuff on me! This is my favorite too, you know, I'm just trying to be analytical here...)We Finns are famous for being impolite and unfriendly...:)

: Katja


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: