Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 329:question:329--week_2_questions_comments-2020 [2026/08/30 22:53] – 186.247.173.224
+++ 329:question:329--week_2_questions_comments-2020 [2026/09/01 14:23] (current) – 199.111.65.35
@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 ====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
-This film has many blatant historical inaccuracies, taking unabashed liberties with any primary source material they may have used to write the story-line. Firstly, there is of course the matter of Pocahontas' age, in which they aged her up so that she could be involved in a romance plot with John Smith's character. They were both, in the reality of their initial meeting, around 10 years old and 27 respectively. John Smith wrote about her being a mediator, negotiator and trader. Her impact on his life had no romantic connotations in the slightest. Smith would actually only go on to embellish his colonial venture in a later publication and portray her as his savior from execution 16 years later (in his 1624 memoir //The Generall Historie//), 7 years after she died, which indicates a likely fabrication. John Smith also worked to trade with the natives and actually had a somewhat amicable relationship with them. His main goal was to prevent his men from starving, as they were sorely under-prepared for this excursion, a mistake which cost the lives of many of his men. He returned to England for medical treatment following an accident in which a bag of gunpowder exploded at his waist. Relations between the Powhatans and the colonists worsened drastically soon afterwards, resulting in mass casualties. Overall, things were actually much more gritty, violent, and politically complex than what was presented in the Disney film. - Leo Tooks
 Being a Disney movie, I felt that the judgment of accuracy was never that important of a factor in its creation.  John Smith hardly talked about Pocahontas in his ‘True Relation of Such Occurrences’, and certainly not in a romantic light.  **The film exploited a child and made her into a woman of a man’s desire.  Of course, this was probably done to make viewers see a colonizer and indigenous woman fall in love and have the trope of “look racism and differences don’t exist, they are in love”.**  Pocahontas, as we discussed in class never did save John Smith and the entire four-day ritual of John Smith becoming a werowance was absent from the film.  There are also problems with how the settler’s village was portrayed as the issue of food and illness which was one of the initial reasons contact was formed with the Native Americans (though there is a single ear of corn given to John).  Most of the characters, at least the main ones, were real people as Kocoum was the husband of Pocahontas, though the film only portrays him as an admirer. -Janis Shurtleff
@@ Line 102: / Line 101: @@
 I think the most glaring inaccuracies in the film is the age of Pocahontas being much older than she really was at the time, and her relationship with John Smith being more romanticized in the film. --Richard Ferris
+The historical inaccuracies of this film is very prevalent in many cases. For one, Pocahontas was a very young girl and John Smith was at least a 30-year-old man in real life. While children did get married young during this time period, it does not justify the films portray of attraction and overall display of affection between the two. Pochantas helps John Smith out of kindness, curiosity, and negligence. The film did portray her saving John Smiths life well, but it was not for the same reasons. The film also made John smith seem nicer than he actually was. John Smith was a captain on a ship headed for all they knew a dangerous new land. John Smith had to keep the people aboard in line and make sure things ran smoothly unless he wanted chaos to erupt. In his famous line "He who will not work, will not eat," John Smith was probably not liked. He had to enforce this line, or his people were not going to survive. This line is not spoken about at all in the film. When Pocahnas and the Indians do help him in real life, it is not as abundantly as it is in the film. -- Autumn. M
 ====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======
@@ Line 179: / Line 180: @@
 The question as to why Disney made the movie in the first place is interesting since they had to change so much of the story to make a more child-friendly version of colonization. If the goal was to introduce more diversity to the Disney franchise then they probably should've chosen a different story rather than creating an idealistic image of John Smith and others. The choice to tell the story of Pocahontas is cool, but it wasn't done in a great way and has impacted how Americans have viewed European colonization. If this is the only exposure people get to this story than it really does more harm than good in my opinion, and makes the job of historians who want to tell the real story of Pocahontas much harder. - Wilson LeCount
+So what if the makers of the Pocahontas movie are historically incorrect? At least they made their movie and their money at the end of the day. This question is controversial because Disney makes children film and many would say that the realities of Pocahantas as well as John Smiths story would be too much for young eyes. So what should we do about the problem of inaccuracy? I think they should make a live action movie of Pocahontas and make it historically accurate. So, what if audiences don't like it? It would finally be something that historians would be proud of and happy to watch. I think it would put a lot of disagreements to rest if historians could put their input into historical movies even if the film has a small budget due to declining watchers. -- Autumn. M