The French-Indian War: A Historic Review

Running Time: 1756 to 1763

Setting: North America; or, most of the world. The French-Indian War is a name that really only exists in the United States (as a reference to the two peoples facing British colonists). Everywhere else, the “war” was actually just a part of the much larger Seven Years War—a mess that touched and torched parts of Europe, Africa, India, Canada, South America, Pacific islands and other lands over a period a bit longer than seven years. It’s like calling World War II the “War of North Africa.” But if a naming error is the worst part of this war, that’s pretty good.

It’s not.

Concept (for the French): The British moved into the Ohio Valley and have simultaneously hindered our trade with the Natives and turned several tribes against us. And then some British Major and an Indian chief tomahawk-ed French soldiers.

Concept (for the Americans): The French are building forts in the Ohio Valley and have simultaneously hindered our trade with the Natives and turned several tribes against us.

Concept (For the British): The French attacked Fort Necessity and we don’t play games.

Before the War: At every stage from the 16th century to the Declaration of Independence, it's important to note that nobody saw themselves as “Americans.” The British and French colonists were still very much British and French. But as far as origins go, this war is something pretty crazy. For years the French and British traders and small military units got into squabbles but then in May of 1754, Major George Washington (yes, that one) teamed up with Indian Chief Tanaghrisson to surprise attack a French scouting party. During the battle, Tanaghrisson split open the head of French Commander Joseph Jumonville. Tanaghrisson, to his end, claimed the French had previously ate his father—which, even if not true, is quite traumatizing.

Plot: In retaliation, the French attacked Fort Necessity and on July 4th, George Washington surrendered. The message of surrender was written in French and included the point that George Washington’s party had assassinated Old Joe Jumonville. Washington was told that a failure to surrender would result in mass scalping. Washington was 21 years old. And he couldn’t read French. The accepted surrender terms basically made Washington a loser and a war criminal—humiliating and enraging the British. The British sent a larger garrison of troops and attacked the nearby French fort and both countries formally declared war. Here, things can get long-winded, but eventually the British and French signed bi-lingual treaties.

After the War: The British, despite winning the war, were plunged into debt and felt the colonies, for gaining peace, land and prosperity ought to pay for some of the costs. This outraged the richest colonists and smugglers who went about stirring up images of British greed and religious fear mongering. Boom. American Revolution. The French, though, are not a side to be envied as their war debt crippled their country while their top leaders (Louis XV and others) claimed that they had essentially won the war by giving away Canada. Then the French went around saying they never really wanted Canada in the first place.

Contemporary Controversy: To this day, the countries involved don’t agree on the intentions of the French scouting party that Washington and Co. took out. Was the party looking to negotiate a territorial peace, as the French argue? Or were they spying on the newly constructed Fort Necessity? Perhaps the party was just acting like a bunch of jerks and scaring away the game in the area.

Film Adaptation: Obviously, Michael Mann’s film, “Last of the Mohicans” is set during the war and commendable for its prop/costume authenticity. The same cannot be said for Mann’s, 2006 film, “Miami Vice”--wherein characters drove cars and used technology that wasn’t actually around in the 1980s. In terms of cultural resonance, I think Stanley Kubrick’s “Spartacus” would be a good comparison to The Seven Year’s War: it's big, slow and contains names and scenes people are familiar with, though usually not in full context because it is overshadowed by later works/wars.

Foreshadowing: The French-Indian War was one of the first examples of two global powers fighting and basically set the foundation for how world wars could be, and would be, fought. This war was a local issue that got ballooned into a world crisis. The Europeans' inability to distinguish separate, and often conflicting, Indian nations was a constant source of head aches/scalpings and led to the Pontiac Rebellion. Inspired by the senseless difficulty some 150 years later, General Motors honored the brutal conflict with their, now defunct, performance car division.

Glory Level: It started everything we know about America. This did more than any jerk’s self-Xeroxed pamphlet. Unfortunately, few iconic images or stories came from the war, largely because all sides felt disheartened, rather than invigorated, at the end.

Influence Level: Basically, kids, don’t be like George Washington: pay attention in school and learn a foreign language. It might stop a war.

"Put your hands down! You haven't had a correct answer all day!"

Chances of a Sequel: What would a sequel even be? Neo flying around like a techno-Superman? You know what would have been really great? If “The Matrix” sequels would have been one prequel (as teased in “The Second Renaissance”) and one sequel. That way, the trilogy has a beginning, middle and ending in a unique way, it would have allowed technology to advance for the third movie and the second one wouldn’t have to be a cliffhanger.

I’m just saying.