Talk:The Last of the Mohicans/Archive 1

Stub?
I don't think I would categorize this as a stub. It's been around for years, it's had plenty of editors work on it, and it's a pretty good length. Maybe not featured article quality, but not a stub, either.

Still, to be fair, I just changed the stub type from "Western" (which it certainly is not) to "Historical fiction", which (though somewhat vague) fits much better. I'm only going to leave it on for a short time, though; if anyone feels this fits the description of a stub, please explain why. Kafziel 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're correct: Not a stub. - DavidWBrooks 14:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blood brothers
Is it true that Bumppo and Chingachgook are blood brothers? If so, it should be mentioned in the article Blood brother. --Abe Lincoln 17:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone else been noticing that titles of pages in wiki are becoming hyperlinks??? Ive noticed a few today...when you refresh the page, they go away! WHAT THE **** User:theprivateer83 22 July 2006 19:50

Confusingly worded sentence
This sentence doesn't seem to read well to me, and I suspect it could be broken into two sentences to improve the readability (if I understand its meaning correctly).

"Purportedly, this was supposed to be a novel of the American Indians, and not a tale of romantic relationships that Cooper had found dissatisfactory and prompted him to begin his writing career."

Does it mean that he found contemporary books about romantic relationships and authored by others dissatisfactory? Would it read better if it was re-written and split into two sentences? "Purportedly, this was supposed to be a novel of the American Indians. He was dissatisfied with contemporary tales of romantic relationships, and this spurred him to begin his writing career." 71.112.11.120 19:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate title?
I removed the statement that the title is inaccurate; the Mohicans were moved from their lands, Christianized, their language is extinct, and they're not even called Mahicans anymore (they're Stockbridge Indians to everyone but anthropologists). Generally speaking, the loss of homeland, religion, language, and name is sufficient to define the end of a cultural group. Chingachgook and Uncas were the last true Mahicans remaining in their native land with their langauge and their religion; after Uncas died, Chingachgook was the last. Kafziel 16:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the title comes from a quote in the book where Tamenund says "I have lived to see the last warrior of the wise race of the Mohicans". Yes, Tamenund knows that many Mohicans are still living. BradMajors 20:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Narrative flaws?
What does that mean. If it means innacuracies, let's just say so in simple language. Sethie (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice and Duncan Heyward fall in love
While Alice and Duncan fall in love in the book, I think in the 1992 movie Duncan falls in love with Cora. BradMajors (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Awful sentence
I just found the following sentence in the article: "A number of films have been based on the book, which is long - and movies need to be short. Hence, numerous cuts, compressions, and inevitable distortions appear in the film versions..." I disagree entirely with the sentiment, but somewhat understand what the writer is trying to say. I will replace it with the following: "A number of films have been based on the lengthy book, with numerous cuts, compressions, and distortions occurring in the story. The adaptations include..."

It's probably not worded so well, but I think it's better than what was there before. Some of my favorite movies are very very long. 74.182.8.21 (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Novel vs. Film
Those who edit this article need to be mindful of the film's inaccuracies in reference to the novel and not ascribe events from the film necessarily to the novel. For instance, the article states that Uncas raced after Magua to save Alice, whom he loved. In fact, he raced after Magua to save Cora, but never showed her any overt affection. I will be correcting such errors as I identify them. Yock (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this also. I don't remember Cora dying in the book... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everestgirl (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * she did die I read the book twice. yea she was stabbed by Magua's associate

173.51.68.51 (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

uncas not LOTM
uncas wasn't the last of the mohicans. his father was. uncas died. 173.51.68.51 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

1992 Michael Mann film
The main character of the 1992 film does indeed have the name Hawkeye. I'm deleting the sentence that says his name was changed "to avoid confusion with the M*A*S*H character".

"I think this movie relies too much on the 1992 film. Several sentences start with the line, "In the film version..." There are several film versions, and what happens in the 1992 film should be kept to that film's page!"


 * I agree. And speaking of the Mann film:

Nevertheless, the stunning vistas in Mann's film, as well as the large number of extras and dramatic visual effects make his movie exceptionally memorable.

...I took the liberty of deleting this entirely, finding it both immaterial and non-NPOV. But if anyone reverts it, then the hell with it.Vonbontee (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Who's messing up the text?
Just a visitor, but it seems someone has intentionally garbled the text. Is there a plan to fix (and protect) the entry in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.35.84 (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Spike in traffic to the page
Can anyone explain the Spike in traffic to this page in the last couple days? Sadads (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They showed the film on UK Channel 5. That's what brought me here to look up the article (and decide to hopefully improve it) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, didn't know that could cause such a dramatic spike, glad it brought you to this article, 16:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll hopefully complete another section tonight (last night was late nite shopping night) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of info about the 'real' Uncas
An IP just removed the info in the lede about the 'real' Uncas. I have reverted as no edit summary was used, but it may not be your usual vandalism, as IP was quite careful about picking the bits to delete. IP could perhaps use an edit summary or explain here what they are doing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot Paragraph
Someone removed the plot section and tried to distill it into a single badly written paragraph. I have restored the edit and attempted to make the summary more concise. Perhaps someone with more skill than I can find a way to make it more of a "summary." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.113.8.138 (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Adopted son of Chingachgook"/Cora's heritage
The list of characters in the article states that Bumppo is the "adopted son of Chingachgook." That is the presentation in the 1992 movie. However, I do not believe there is anything to support that in the novel. In fact, Hawkeye and Chingachgook seem to be contemporaries in the book, and Uncas is younger than both. Bumppo is constantly instructing the younger Uncas, in the style of a father or uncle. Also, Cora obviously has some African ancestry in the book, but the book says it is "remote" and therefore the "quadroon" assertion in the article is probably not true to Cooper's text. Hartfelt (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's been added back in, as I'm sure I took it out once before. Nathaniel and Chingachgook are much closer together in age in the book. Quadroon, however, I think comes out of the book.  The entire text is online, easy to check.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hartfelt is right - Cora is never termed "quadroon" in the book. (It's telling that the citation for that assertion is for a dictionary, not the novel.) The earliest use I can find of that bit of superfluous specificity is an 1862 Atlantic Monthly article. -- Galorette (talk) 3 February 2013  —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Real vs. fictional Uncas disambiguation
In my opinion this article needs strong disambiguation on this matter. At least by removing links to a real one when s LOTM character referred (which I just done). It would be also a good idea to either create a distinct page named something like "Uncas (character)" or rename a current Uncas page to "Uncas (chief)" (as I believe that to a present-day reader a fictional Uncas is way more familiar than a real one).77.108.89.130 (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hawkeye inspiration?
Possibly according to White Savage: William Johnson and the Invention of America, by Fintan O'Toole, Sir William Johnson was James Fenimore Cooper's inspiration for the Hawkeye character. I read it some years ago, but no longer have access to it. This book reviewer seems to think the same thing, apparently independent of and/or expanded upon O'Toole: "In the valley of the Mohawk" http://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/aug/27/featuresreviews.guardianreview3 Can this view be substantiated? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation help?
Does anyone know how these names are supposed to be pronounced, at least in 1826 when the book came out? Chingachgook, Magua, and Uncas Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Edited lede for Uncas info
The short lede is a great summary, but contained a whole paragraph devoted to a historical point about Uncas being named after a sachem, and mahican/mohegan confusion. While this is certainly a notable point, it is not something that belongs in a general summary of the article (i.e. the lede). Devoting a paragraph to it there is out of proportion to the summary of the rest of the article made by the other paragraphs. It is one minor, specific piece of one section of the article, not a broad summary of an element of the work. The discussion of the issue is already covered in the body almost verbatim, so it is unnecessary and ill-placed in the lede.204.65.34.237 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

recent cleanup
Imho it is not really helpful to remove information which well known (to be correct) just because there is currently no footnote attached it. A better way to deal with that, is possibly adding a citation needed tag or best to add the source yourself of course.

It is also not helpful to simply remove international adaptions due to "not being sourced", adaptions are essentially a source/reference for themselves, so in that sense their is no sourcing required for simply naming. Sourcing is required if you make more specific claims beyond their existence.--Kmhkmh (talk)


 * I have to support User:Nikkimaria's removal of content. Since the novel is so popular, we cannot include all adaptations: they may not be notable, or done within a space of minimal interest to the public. Citations are key to making sure that we aren't putting forward material that the public can't find reinforced elsewhere, Sadads (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No offense but I know how the sourcing works in WP and how to deal with unsourced but correct content and that isn't really the way it was done here.
 * Nobody suggested that we necessarily need to include all adaptions nor it the article contains that much that delection/selection was really necessary. The issue is with somewhat arbitrary deletion of various adaption (with no real rationale given). As pointed out before in particular in Coopers case international adaption matter, because his international success was of the particular features of career/work (he was the first widely read American author in Europe and as result had strong influence on literature/culture their. In German there's even an idiom based on the last mohican).
 * The so called unsourced material deleted from the lead is more or less common knowledge for everybody being familiar Cooper or early American literature and it is relatively easy to look it up in variety of lexica.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's not generally common knowledge is sufficient reason to provide a source; we should not assume all readers will be familiar with Cooper or early American literature. If it's easy to look up then it should be similarly easy to source.
 * If the international adaptations matter, add prose with appropriate citations establishing why they matter. DonIago (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all international adaptions do matter as much as local/national ones and they are to be treated the same as far as sourcing policies goes. With regard to (American) English literature Wikipedia is not an an "American encyclopedia" for Americans (and American adaptions), but it is an international encyclopedia in English, which has an international readership not just American one.
 * I did not suggest the content should not be sourced, but I suggest that correct (and actually relatively easy to verify) content should not be removed solely on the base that footnote is missing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Kmhkmh: You should be able to find a good bibliography of international adaptations, if these are common enough and well discussed. Please verify your claim. Your argument is one towards adding a source to start with, instead of trying to add material that, by way of an extreme example, could be someones high school project, and unsourced. I hope you do find the source: we have a very myopic set of information in the English Wikipiedia community, and its sad how much of the Cooper scholarship is missing on our articles about his works, Sadads (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am a member of the English Wikipiedia community since 2007 and as I told you above I know the sourcing policies. As far as the lead is concerned I added 2 sources, but it seems to me you simply edited without reading them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can make the experience argument: I have over 8x the number of edits you do, and more quality content (GA, B, etc), produced mostly in literature topics; Nikkimaria is a featured article reviewer, and has more than 6x the edits, and DonIago has 5x the edits. Moreover, I have a degree in literary studies, and have experience working in the field of adaptation. But that is not the point:
 * As for the removal: you left the citation needed template in the sentence, which indicates to both me and readers that the claim (which seems fallacious and controversial) is unsourced. According to WP:V: possibly fallacious and controveresial claims need to be sourced. Thats a pretty non-controversial removal, Sadads (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't make what experience argument? You seem to make one rather than me. The reason why stated that I'm editing since 2007 was simply, because you seem to assume I'm a "new editor" not being familiar with the (sourcing) policies. In any case for the issue at hand it doesn't really matter, who has more edits or who reviews what, it matters what is correct and relevant/notable information on The Last of the Mohican. But if you want to make the experience or quality argument, I'd say the most important feature of a good editor is that he/she's somewhat familiar with the subject he's editing (at least when edit content rather than just fixing format or spelling issues).
 * Sorry that wasn't clear: the initial claim you made, was as if your experience somehow superseded the consensus. Rhetorically, that was very problematic, and creates a hostile environment. I appreciate your experience, but that should never be a line of evidence for your knowledge of any process in a community where consensus supersedes rules. Sadads (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I tried to point out from the start of this thread, the information in the lead was neither really fallacoius nor controversial (btw your argumnt with regard to Jane Austen however was a fallacy) and can verified by just looking up a few encyclopedic entries on Cooper (or the Last Mohican). On that note while it is not wrong to explicitly quote the encyclopedia, it isn't really necessary, as you find that information or slight variations of it in other encyclopedic entries on Cooper as well nvm any good biography book or scholarly article on him. In fact a reader might misinterpret the current wording as only this particular encyclopedia claiming that, which is somewhat misleading.


 * As far as the citation required tag is concerned, that was an edit mistake of mine. I overlooked after adding the sources, that I hadn't removed all associated citation required tag already. Sorry, if that had led you astray.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If the attribution is problematic, we should really develop the survey of claims in the legacy section that way the lead actually acts like the summary its supposed to be (per WP:Lead). From my understanding of popular and literary history, Cooper though a prominent American author, is not nearly as popular as the Brontes, Austen, Twain, or Steven King, and any claim that he is one of the most read English novelists I hold with great skepticism, based on my experience and knowledge of the scholarship. This is a point that really needs scholarship survey, to see if there is any actual evidence or just American lit scholars puffing up the author and the tradition (Cooper's quality is much poorer then British fiction of the period, and there was a big movement to justify the "canon" of American literature in the early part of the 20th century that puffed up his importance, amongst other authors and works). Its a really problematic claim that might be "common knowledge" to some, but really should be backed in our representation of it by evidence or scholarly consensus, Sadads (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there is still a bit confusion. The claim is not that Cooper has more reader than Stephen King or various other authors today, the claim is that for a period in the 19th century Cooper was one of the most read authors (in the Western World) and the first widely read US author. That part is completely undisputed afaik (and essentially just question of sold copies and news reports from that time). A different question however is the assessment of "literary value" by scholars and critics, there of course Cooper did much worse in particular towards the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century (and the general attitude is probably fairly symbolized by Twain's famous criticism though there were a few dissenting voices and it slightly different situation in Europe). It is interesting to note though, that Cooper was still widely read but less so by adults instead abridged/edited versions of his books became rather popular youth/adolescent literature and remain so until today (a phenomenon/fate a bit similar to Stevenson and maybe even Dickens in the UK). However afaik since 1960 there seems to be a growing reassessment of Cooper's work and its meaning/legacy in terms of literary quality and meaning. At least there seems to be a large number of scholarly publications since then doing/claiming so and which appear to be mainstream now (you can catch quite a number actually via Google Books and Google Scholar to get a quick impression and there is also at l, see also my old posting a few sections above, there is actually also one). My personal impression is that aside from individual scholar's preference new trends in academics and society in general have led to this reassessment of Cooper. Scholars and Critics started to look at his work from different perspectives. Instead of looking at the quality or elegance of the prose, character description or plot details, scholars looked at the creation of myths, landscape, themes and such. With the rise of the "antiwestern" in the 60s and 70s, a new representation Indians in western/historic movies, skepticism towards the modern mass society/civilization critique and environmentalism suddenly certain themes and threads of the leatherstocking tales might look modern again.
 * I agree however that assessment by individual scholars have to be taken with grain of salt and scholars tend to have their pet project and puff them up a bit and hence not being necessarily being representative of the mainstream. However that is problem we have in general with any author or literary work. In Cooper's case there is however at least one survey publication Alan Frank Dyer's James Fenimore Cooper: An Annotated Bibliography of Criticism which has complied and assesses the US criticism until around 1990. It claims that the reassessment of Cooper started around the middle of the 20th century.
 * I agree as well that ideally all that stuff should be with the appropriate sources in one or several legacy/Influence/reception section, whereas the lead just provides the article's summary without sources. In general the article could use a lot of works. I consider the sources in the lead just as a quick fix to provide some of that information at all, until a larger rewrite and reorganization occurs.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Kmhkmh, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion" (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). The point of requiring material like lists of adaptations to have reliable secondary sources is not just to prove that these adaptations exist, but that they are significant enough to warrant inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute on that regarding "true and useful does not automatically imply inclusion", as I stated further up it is about "correct and relevant/notable". While your edits removed some stuff for which you might argue a lack of significance being obvious, for other cases it was not. In particular you offered no rationale why you seem to consider the significance of marvel comic as granted or "obvious", while a comic or animation by French, Italian or Japanese publishers is not. I agree that this is a bit of grey area and possible a question of editorial discretion/opinion, as for Hollywood movies or a Broadway play one can often assume significance without referencing a source explicitly stating "this is a significant adaption" wheraas for other adaptations a source might be required. My argument here however (and what I tried to tell you earlier) is that (upon closer inspection) the French Comic, the Italian and Japanese animation as well as the German radio series are similar cases to the Hollywood Movie or the Marvel Comic. The French Comic is by 2 established graphic novel artists in France and seems to have undergone several editions, the Italian animation seems to have been co-produced and broadcast by RAI (roughly comparable to Fox or NBC broadcast in the US or BBC broadcast in the UK). The German radios series featured Helmut Lange, a well known actor in Germany, that was also published on disc and relatively popular in Germany at the time (probably still is). In addition Lange did some German movie adaption as well. All of that needs to be seen in the context that for Cooper and his Last Mohican there has been a significant international reception from early on. In Germany for instance it was already a bestseller in the 1820s and in general it was widely read and translated throughout continental Europe.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then, as I mentioned before, I would recommend including prose, backed-up by sources, establishing how they're significant. Your above comment would work all by itself...but we needed sources, not just your assertions. DonIago (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

As an afterthought for the discussion the above in particular with regard to the importance of Cooper's (and The Last of the Mohican's) international reception, I'd like to recommend a quite informative overview given in Craig White's Student Companion to Cooper in chapter two, which is can be accessed online via via Google Books (pp.13-31, in particular 19-23): http://books.google.de/books?id=pxNEjrl5n1kC&pg=PA13 --Kmhkmh (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Racial politics
I am reading the book for the first time, and I have to say that I was unprepared for the level of racism that pervades the text. I expected some (it was written in the early 1800s, after all), but did not expect racial essentialism to be such a major driver of the plot. I am somewhat surprised to see that the article barely mentions the racial politics of the book, and then only in the anodyne statement that it reflects the racial complexity of late colonial society. Surely articles (perhaps books?) have been written on this subject and are worthy of a paragraph or two in the article. --Potosino (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a whole body of scholarship on this book written, primarily during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and mid 90s that deals with this issue, some rather substantive themes and literary history issues, as well as the relationship of the book to literary canon. However, no-one has taken the lead on doing a thorough survey. This would be rather critical for Wikipedia (it gets nearly 17000 views a month and is one of the most popular "American classics" outside the United States up with Moby Dick). I would invite you to work on it, and would be ready to help with feedback - life is a bit too busy right now for such a large article rewrite. For some good models of quality, I would recommend working from model featured articles and GA articles listed at WP:WikiProject Novels. Let me know if I can help with finding sources, or feedback on article structure, Sadads (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Major changes to the Last of the Mohicans plot
I have pretty much rewritten the entire plot summary of the book, because the previous one was a plot summary of the movie, and not of the book itself. It is extremely lengthy (as is the book itself!) so if someone thinks that it would better the article, they can make it more concise. There can be some grammar errors (spelling of Tamenund, Hurons vs Huron pluralization, using plural verbs with the word 'party') — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggsInMyPockets (talk • contribs) 03:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Last of the Mohicans, Merrill bear.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Last of the Mohicans, Merrill bear.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 21, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-04-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"withdraw under parle"
Could this be reworded? I cannot find this usage definition in a Google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromeg52 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Odd, it took me less than a minute to get a definition. "Parle" or "Parley" is a negotiation, such as is done under a flag of truce. "withdraw under parle" is therefore when the enemy agrees to allows you to retreat from a point of conflict unharmed. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I know exactly what is meant. My point is, that the phrase "withdraw under parle" does not appear in a Google search (except in this Wiki article). Therefore it is unnecessarily confusing and I recommend that it be reworded.Jeromeg52 (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)JeromeG52

Terminology
I like the way how the artist expresses his feelings for the cover illustration for the last of the mohicans but this also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.211.158 (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC) There is considerable confusion about Mohican vs. Mohegan terminology, as can be seen on the Mohican page, but there's no reason to bring it onto this page, too. The book cals them Mohicans - switching to older/newer/perhaps more authentic terminology halfway through the article just confuses the reader. - DavidWBrooks 03:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * Yes, there has been confusion between the terms in less scholarly work. But, I think it would be better to not perpetuate the confusion. We now have a much better knowledge of some of the different indigenous groups, so we dont need to conflate these two anymore. I think that since "Mohican" has been used to refer to 2 different peoples, we should use the names "Mohegan" & "Mahican" for their respective groups as these terms have not been used with quite as much confusion.


 * Yes, switching terms is confusing. I was just blindly changing what links to Mohican. I have added a little parenthetical note.


 * (am i convincing you a little?) Peace. - ishwar User_talk:Ish_ishwar 04:12, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems fine to me. - DavidWBrooks 11:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have more forts and real history than you all have brain cells. Grenada is not Canada...

https://www.google.com/search?q=forts+in+grenada&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7t-2u2ojXAhUG4iYKHXXbBlwQ_AUICygC&biw=1024&bih=510

Search for Gun-Munro "Grenada" We are alive and well, but you will never know what truth is...

Too bad you don't live again like we do. Keep your lies and fake history. We have immortality, something your breed will never achieve...

Memorial inscription: "IN MEMORY OF THE HONBLE GEORGE GUN MUNRO, SENIOR MEMBER OF HIS MAJESTY'S COUNCIL, ASSISTANT JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, AND PUBLIC TREASURER OF THE COLONY OF GRENADA, HE DEPARTED THIS LIFE ON THE 5th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1829, AGED 5O YEARS... https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/person/view/10099

Two of the forts were called Frederick and Adolphus, respectively after the second and tenth sons of George III, then Britain's monarch. One was named Matthew in honour of Edward Matthew, Grenada's Lieutenent-Governor at that time, and the fourth carried the name Lucas, after William Lucas, a prominent Grenadian from whom the French had acquired the lands on which these forts stand. http://www.grenada-history.org/forts.htm

MY GRANDMOTHER WHO I KNEW WELL.... Marjorie Evans (Gun-Munro) (1919 - 2001) - Genealogy - Geni www.geni.com/people/Marjorie-Evans/6000000000382169665 Nov 9, 2014 - Genealogy for Marjorie Evans (Gun-Munro) (1919 - 2001) family tree on Geni, with over 175 million profiles of ancestors and living relatives

HER Grandfather from Grenada... Barclay Justin Gun-Munro (1849 - 1912) - Genealogy - Geni www.geni.com/people/Barclay-Gun-Munro/6000000000843660495 Jan 21, 2015 - Genealogy for Barclay Justin Gun-Munro (1849 - 1912) family tree on Geni, with over 170 million profiles of ancestors and living relatives.

HER BROTHER from Grenada... Sydney Douglas Gun-Munro (1916 - 2007) - Genealogy - Geni www.geni.com/people/Sydney-Gun-Munro/6000000000628045236 Feb 23, 2015 - Genealogy for Sydney Douglas Gun-Munro (1916 - 2007) family tree on Geni, with over 175 million profiles of ancestors and living relatives.

SON OF THE DETECTIVE FOR JACK THE RIPPER CASE. BORN 1879 AT 21 WENTWORTH STREET, WHITECHAPEL LONDON Cecil Douglas Gun-Munro (c.1898 - d.) - Genealogy - Geni www.geni.com/people/Cecil-Douglas-Gun-Munro/6000000007360427276 Dec 12, 2014 - Genealogy for Cecil Douglas Gun-Munro (c.1898 - d.) family tree on Geni, with over 175 million profiles of ancestors and living relatives.

Her Father from Grenada... Barclay Justin (Kiddie) Gun-Munro (1876 - 1923) - Genealogy - Geni www.geni.com/people/Barclay-Gun-Munro/6000000000631356502 Nov 10, 2014 - Genealogy for Barclay Justin (Kiddie) Gun-Munro (1876 - 1923) family tree on Geni, with over 175 million profiles of ancestors and living ...

What else do you want to know ????...

You don't have to fix the fake history but at least learn some true facts for your own knowledge... We are not a bad people, all we want is respect for our dead (Who are waiting for you)...

Thank you...

Have a nice day....

Jason (Grenada)... Trading Nutmeg for 18000 years.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.71.238 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not sure what changes you'd like specifically made to the article. But unless it's protected, why not just make them as long as you're providing appropriate sourcing at the time? DonIago (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Historical Background as "overtly political," "apolitical," and/or "incorrect"
Stop removing sourced edits in the novel's historical background section regarding settler colonialism, especially without sourcing. These edits are correct and have been sourced. In fact, if anything I'd argue that they could be expanded upon if someone had enough time. I unfortunately do not right now. Hobomok (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It’s always fascinated me that that people could hold such ridiculous beliefs as “an early 19th century writer wasn’t considering the implications of the ‘genocidal structure of settler colonialism’ when writing an adventure novel”. Thank God we have academics willing to write articles that are able to pass even the completely impartial rigors of publications such as the “Journal of Genocide Research”, where it can then go on to influence other works of similar quality, such as “Ethnic Boundary-Making and the Gendered Politics of Belonging along the Colombia-Ecuador Borderland”, or “Diversity is (not) good enough: Unsettling White Settler Colonialism within Toronto’s Queer Service Sector”. Luckily, in the 21st century, we are able to have a much clearer picture of society in the 19th than ever before. 71.34.17.66 (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c Hobomok (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

critical reception
The critical reception is not representative at all, instead it focuses on a few well known negative criticisms (in particular Mark Twain). While these do belong in the article there are in no way representative for the overall reception and moreover any modern (often more positive) reception is missing completely.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If contemporary positive reception is added, I'd have to argue that contemporary negative reception should also be added alongside. For every scholarly argument that the novel is one of "Great American" fashion there is a (stronger, in my opinion,) counterargument that it reinforced and reinforces settler-colonial ideals on the continent and is responsible for popular contemporary noble savage stereotypes. Hobomok (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that the current sections focuses in the negative reviews of two critics, which are overall not representative at all. There is nothing wrong with mentioning them (in particular since Twain's criticism became rather famous), but there is something with essentially noting the other reception in particular that before and after.
 * The "noble savage" is problematic stereotype but there need to be two things consideredin that context: a) Cooper belongs to romanticism (stylistly) rather than to realism like Twain b) "the noble savage" as problematic as it might be is already a significant improvement over the common Indian treatment as "evil savages".--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying--if someone did indeed want to add some positive criticism of Cooper, perhaps something like Matthew Wynn Sivils' recent American Environmental Fiction, 1782-1847 in order to have a more neutral critical section, I think that would make sense. However, I completely disagree that the "noble savage" and Cooper's romanticization of Native peoples has done the world any favors, and further, Mohicans has examples of both character archetypes in Uncas/Chingachgook and evil, backwards Magua. Because of that, and the number of critics in Native studies speaking out against Cooper and his works since they were published (but more recently beginning with Deloria), I'm not sure the stereotype or Cooper's use of it is redeemable. --Hobomok (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"Twain complained that Cooper lacked a variety of style and was overly wordy. In the essay, Twain re-writes a small section of The Last of the Mohicans, claiming that Cooper, 'the generous spendthrift', used 100 'extra and unnecessary words' in the original version." Gutenberg has "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses." The re-write of a small section does not appear in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.164.216 (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Gutenberg version is correct, because "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses" was published in 1895 in the *North American Review* and did not include the re-write. However, in the 1940's Twain scholar Bernard DeVoto found that there was more to the original essay, including the re-write, and published it fully in *The New England Quarterly* (v.19, no. 3, Sept. 1946). The later essay is included in the Broadview Press Ed. of *Mohicans*, edited by Paul C. Gutjahr, and that is the iteration of the essay that is cited in the body of the entry. I have edited the wording in the body of the entry to clarify this. Hobomok (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph of historical background
Removing this part for being "overly political" isn't an adequate reason, as the content is relevant. If you believe that this section isn't neutral, then please edit it, rather than removing it. Gexuma (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Even if one believes it isn’t neutral, I’d recommend opening a discussion on it at the talk page before editing. That content is long-standing and representative of scholarly conversation about the novel. —Hobomok (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted recent edit warring on this section. The editor removing the section may have a point (I haven't looked at the sources and don't know much about the subject) but edit warring is not the way to accomplish any change to this article. Please explain issues with the section here, where they can be discussed. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No support in cited reference for theory that Cooper supported "scientific racism" or "increasing pressure on Native Americans"
The below section advances a certain political agenda that, whether valid or not, has nothing to do with the book or the author. None of the cited references even mention the book or the author, and one of the references is about a totally different topic (the second amendment). Accordingly, this paragraph is inaccurate and irrelevant at best, as it does not provide a useful background for understanding the book or the author's writings. It should be deleted.

At the time of Cooper's writing, U.S. settlers believed and perpetuated the myth that Native Americans were disappearing, believing they would ultimately be assimilated or killed off entirely due to the genocidal structure of settler colonialism.[5] Especially in the East, as Native Peoples' land was stolen and settled on in the name of U.S. expansion and Jeffersonian agrarianism, the narrative that many Native Peoples were "vanishing" was prevalent in both novels like Cooper's and local newspapers.[6][7] This allowed settlers to view themselves as the original people of the land and reinforced their belief in European ethnic and racial superiority through, among other beliefs, the tenets of scientific racism.[8] In this way, Cooper was interested in the American progress narrative when more colonists were increasing pressure on Native Americans, which they, and Cooper, would then view as "natural".

Modernister (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for bringing this to the talk page instead of continuously deleting information. You’ll see that the information you’re questioning has been discussed here before, and multiple editors have kept the edits in question, because they do directly relate to the book. I recommend reading the cited books in question. Each one is from a respected scholar and each one does indeed study Cooper’s novel, even if the title of the study as a whole doesn’t mention Cooper’s novel. For example, despite the title of the second book from Dunbar-Ortiz, the novel is very much discussed in the manner that is paraphrased. O’Brien’s book, despite not focusing solely on Cooper’s novel, does the same. These are not the only scholarly studies that discuss the book in this manner; they are the ones that have been cited. More could be added, but it seems unnecessary, as these cover the general gist of the colonial-historical background at play in the novel, which is necessary scholarly information in-line with the historical background. -Hobomok (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)