From: beaver.cs.washington.edu!gnosys!tamvm1.tamu.edu!HWS.bitnet!HWS1!MIHALYI
Subject: "Mohicans" review
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:51:00 GMT

Original-Sender: HWS.bitnet!HWS1!MIHALYI

This message was  originally submitted by MIHALYI%HWS1@HWS to  the NATCHAT list
at TAMVM1. If  you simply forward it  back to the list, it  will be distributed
with the paragraph you are now reading being automatically removed. If you edit
the  contributions you  receive into  a digest,  you will  need to  remove this
paragraph before  mailing the  result to  the list. Finally,  if you  need more
information from  the author of this  message, you should  be able to do  so by
simply replying to this note.

----------------- Message requiring your approval (100 lines) -----------------
from the SYRACUSE HERALD AMERICAN, Sunday,October 11,1992 (without permission)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Mohicans' attacks Indians' dignity

by Doug George-Kanentiio

When I saw "The Last of the Mohicans," I saw red.  Red as in a stream of blood
in this most violent of films.  Red because I, as a Mohawk, was embarrassed by
this assault upon the dignity of all native peoples, especially our cousins the
Hurons.
The casual movie patron, knowing little or nothing about Indians, will leave
the theater convinced of our historical treachery and our biological savagery.
According to director Michael Mann, Indians were but a primitive people, given
to performing acts of extreme cruelty as they satisfied their lust for revenge.
Sadly, Mann's work has been praised by film reviewers, almost all of whom cite
his attention to detail and commitment to presenting an important part of
colonial history as truthfully as possible.  The critics mention his use of
native actors, language and custom as indicative of the film's accuracy. Mann
is also given high marks for his ability to capture the violence of the times,
not sparing the viewer the sound of a war club striking skulls or blood
spurting from fresh scalps.
Mann had the opportunity to present us with fresh insights into a critical
time in our history but he elected to literally rip at the heart.  The tragic
result is one of the most terrible assaults upon the dignity and image of
Indian people since the excesses of John Wayne.
To Mann, whose movie is based on the novel by James Fenimore Cooper, Indians
clearly represent that side of the human psyche which is given to rage and
wanton acts of cruelty.  His hero is Daniel Day-Lewis, a white man raised in
savagery but saved from barbarism by the love of a pure woman.  As alter-ego,
there is the Huron, Maquas, depraved and clever, a man only in appearance for
he was without such human emotions as compassion, humor or fear.  Maquas is a
colonial serial killer infatuated with his tomahawk.
Utterly simplistic by design, "Last of the Mohicans" borrows freely from the
old westerns.  There are shootouts and brawls, maidens at risk, a hero
triumphant against terrible odds and, of course, the dramatic last fight
before the victorious couple stand on a hilltop, bathed in glorious sunset.
Why does such a film appeal to so many people?  Is it American audiences
have difficulty accepting native people as complex human beings, torn by doubt,
moved by joy and consumed with love?  Compared with "Dances with Wolves,"
this film is a disturbing step back into another era, one native people had
hoped ended with John Ford.  This film cannot stand unchallenged.
Rather than accept Mann's version of history, I looked into the facts.  I
found there were very few Hurons in the northeast in 1757.  They were called
Wyandots with villages in the Ohio-Michigan area.  Some were part of the
French military expedition against Ft. Edward along with 32 other native
groups.  The name Maquas is not Huron but was a term used by Dutch settlers
to describe the Mohawks.
Digging a little deeper, as Mann should have done, I discovered many of the
atrocities attributed to the Hurons were committed by a colonial militia
unit called Roger's Rangers, of whom Nathaniel (Day-Lewis) would have been
a part.  I learned Uncas and Chingachgook were hardly the "last of the
Mohicans" since that native nation had a prosperous settlement in Massachusetts.
These people later moved west to a place near Oneida, then to Wisconsin,
where they are known as the Stockbridge Indians.  Other Mohicans now live in
Connecticut.
I found out the British surrendered Ft. Edward on August 9, 1757 after days
of bombardment by the French.  English troops were murdered by Indian fighters
but not to the extent shown in the film.  Colonel Munro did not have his
heart ripped out by Maquas, but survived, was promoted and died the following
year.  Maquas could not have brought his captives to an Abenaki village in the
Adirondacks since they lived in northern Vermont.  The Abenakis would not
have conversed in Mohawk nor would they have permitted a single man to
order the execution of a British officer.
Reference is made in the film to Joseph Brant, a noted Mohawk military
leader during the American Revolution.  The problem is, Brant was born
in 1742 and would have been 15 years old in 1757.  There is also a scene
involving an Indian burial ground, where corpses are placed on scaffolds.
The Iroquois never used scaffolds, preferring to place their dead in the
ground.
For all of its obvious mistakes, just as disturbing is what the director
elected to omit.  There is but one mention of the Six Nations Iroquois
Confederacy, the most formidable native force in eastern North America,
and its efforts to prevent war.  Sir William Johnson was the most
influential white man in the colonies.  He played a key role as a British
general and superintendent of Indian Affairs during this war, yet he is
completely ignored.
No one should have to accept these compromises, least of all by a director
who had the chance to create a film which adhered to the laws of common
sense.  Can a man running at full sprint fire two 12 pound, four foot
muskets simultaneously, killing two men moving quickly in opposite
directions?  Maybe Arnold Shwarzenegger, but certainly not an emaciated
Day-Lewis.  Is it possible for a fragile birch bark canoe to go over a
waterfall and not be damaged?  Boat builders across the United States
would love to know how Mann managed this little trick.
It is embarassing to see people I know in this film.  Clearly, native
historians and writers were not consulted in the writing of the script
because Mann did not want facts to stand in the way of his action-thriller.
It is disappointing to see American Indian Movement activists Russell Means
and Dennis Banks play key roles in the "Last of the Mohicans" with straight
faces.  It is even more disturbing for Michael Mann to strive for credibility
by having Leon Shenandoah of the Six Nations Confederacy cited in the film
credits.  As if any self-respecting Iroquois would be proud of this atrocity.
To my knowledge, no one from the Iroquois has endorsed this film.
If you love violence, if you want your worst fears about Indian savages
confirmed, if you want to leave a theater just itching to take care of those
pesky redskins then see this film.  If you want to see the truth, save
your money and rent "Dances With Wolves" or "Powwow Highway".

-Doug George-Kanentiio, a writer and lecturer, is chairman of Round Dance
Productions, a non-profit cultural foundation on Oneida Territory.