As we all know, history is usually up to the interpretation of the teller. I think this is true especially when I compared three different resources all telling the same events in a different way. I have chosen to discuss a specific event in the war that is consistently argued in all the resources I studied, and that is the Massacre of Fort William Henry, no doubt a significant event in the French and Indian War. Each essay and video describes the massacre in a different way.
Let me first look at the film we watched. It was told as a story by a Native American man/actor. This underscores that the film is based largely on the part of the role of the Indians in the war. The ÃÂexpertsÃÂ on the situations at hand were the actual people themselves who wrote letters and were read by actors in the documentary.
250th Anniversary of the Siege and Surrender of Fo...
English: A hand-drawn map by British military engi...
Louis-Joseph de Montcalm trying to stop Native Ame...These first hand accounts let the viewers know exactly what the people were thinking and felt at that time. I believe that it did a good job of explaining the main issues and describing the events of the French and Indian war. Never having heard or learned anything specifically about the war I left class feeling like I understood at least part of what it was all about. In particular, its emphasis on the Indians' point of view was new and interesting, although at times I thought it was over-emphasized. The blend of narrative and action scenes was helped to underline the way the war actually happened. However, I thought the role and portrayal of the Indians in the film was strange. At one point they say that the war depends on the Indians, and both sides know they canÃÂt win without the Indian support, while later, it implies...