Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week. You do not need to post to all areas. – Dr. McClurken

**DO NOT DELETE OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS -- Please be careful as you add your posts that you are not deleting anyone else's work. -- Dr. McClurken**

====== How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history? ======

Disney’s 1995 film, Pocahontas, works well as an introduction for children to the history of conflict between European settlers and Native Americans. Its themes, while simple, are compelling and serve to teach the film’s younger audiences about the values of understanding, compassion, and mutual respect. The film does a good job of underlining the similarities between the two people groups in songs like Steady as The Beating Drum and Savages; while also underlining the differences in their cultural values in songs like Mine,Mine,Mine vs Colors of The Wind. As one might expect from a children’s film, the story does significantly simplify the nature of the historical events, packaging them in a characteristically Disney-esc romance, obscuring much of the real history in the process. I would have perhaps liked to have seen more of a focus on the Colonists’ reliance on trade for food, as it would have further helped to underscore the themes of working together and how much the colonists had to learn from the Native Americans. Overall, while essentially nothing more than historically inspired fiction, Disney’s 1995 film Pocahontas does work to convey the themes of America’s earliest colonial history.  -Lucca Crowe

The movie works as a secondary source in depicting history from the colonies and Native Americans. It does not work well as a secondary source because it is not very accurate. One thing it did seem to get right about history was the English’s desire for gold, wealth, and political power in Virginia.

This movie, although inaccurate in many ways, does work as a secondary source in many ways; for starters, it explains the one of the reasonings for the English coming to America, shown in the song "The Virginia Company." In this song, the English sing, 'For the New World is like Heaven // and we'll all be rich and free // or so we have been told // by the Virginia Company.'  These lyrics describe the blessings and wealth promised by the entrepreneurs of the Virginia Company which was the main reason for attacking the Native Americans. Later on in the show, we see how the English truly viewed the Native Americans in the song "Savages." Their bigotry and disgust towards the natives is shown in the lyrics, 'Savages! Savages! // Drive them from the shore // They're not like you and me // Which means they must be evil." - Zack Steinbaum

In the beginning, the British emphasized that they are coming over to become rich and for freedom. I want to assume that freedom is religious freedom. It also shows the women of the native tribe farming which is an accurate portrayal of their jobs. (Sophie Weber)

As a secondary source this movie works well in the sense that it shows the violent relationship between the colonists and the Native Americans. It shows that the colonists were sent there by the Virginia Company of London to make money and to claim the land. The movie also shows women farming and the men coming back from warring with a different tribe, as well as showing the men preparing to fight the English. These gender roles are historically correct; however, there is also a significant amount of the movie that is incorrect, and this is where the movie fails as a secondary source. -Teresa Felipe

I believe that the movie could work as a secondary source, operating word being could. The movie gets many of the smaller details correct, but the larger ones usually go awash. While the movie itself is not a credible source, it has many credible facts like women harvesting, the English searching for gold… -Annika Sypher

====== Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======

The most glaring historical inaccuracy in Disney's 1995 film Pocahontas is the nature of the primary driving romance of the film. Disney’s Pocahontas is a “Romeo and Juliet” story archetype; a tale of two lovers, from different and adverse groups, meeting and against all odds falling in love, with their relationship helping to bridge the gap between their two peoples. The issue with this story is that as a “historical” film, it has no grounding in historical fact. Far from the brave, strong-willed young woman of the Disney film, the real Pocahontas was described briefly and in passing by John Smith as a ten-year-old girl, the daughter of a local chief of the Powhatan Tribe. She served as nothing more than a show of good faith in a tense hostage negotiation, nothing more than a brief political pawn. Aside from the primary driving romance of the story, the rest of the film bears little resemblance to actual history. There is no mention of the colonists’ need for food, one of the actual driving factors in their story; nor is there much time devoted to examining the Powhatan culture or philosophy, aside from the shallowest elusion to singing with all the voices of the mountain or painting with all the colors of the wind.
The problem with telling a story based on real historical events, is that if you don’t adhere to those events you can give a false and ofttimes misleading understanding of those events to perspective audiences. -Lucca Crowe

I never realized there was a real person named Ratcliffe on the Jamestown expedition until I read Smith's diary. However, he was a captain, not the governor. -Katherine Rayhart

I have a //lot// to criticize about this movie, but I'm going to go with the one I wrote down first. Percy is historically inaccurate. Yes, pugs existed back then. //However//, pugs still had regular sized snouts at the time. They didn't get their squished-face look until sometime after 1860. This wikipedia article has really good examples of what pugs used to look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pug#16th_and_17th_centuries. It even shows that the tiny muzzles must have taken decades to fully breed into pugs because there is a drawing from 1927 of a pug with a regular sized muzzle. -Katherine Rayhart

There were many errors of historical accuracy in the film. A few examples being John Smith and Pocahontas having a relationship (rather than her and John Rolfe), John Smith playing a part in Kocoum’s death, and Pocahontas being the hero who caused peaceful relations between the settlers and Indians. [comment author?]

Very specifically I noticed that a 'Captain Ratcliffe' was mentioned in John Smith's memoirs, and a 'Governor Ratcliffe' appears in the film. The glaring inaccuracy is obviously the idea that 'Governor Ratcliffe' is the one and true villain of the story, as if he was the only one who came to find gold and riches and such. The scene where the rest of the settlers turn on the governor for maintaining his position for war feels like a super damaging perspective in this movie. The single villain is a classic Disney move but implies that only the 'higher ups' of the VA Company regarded themselves as superior and entitled to native land. it's not a very big-picture inaccuracy but it bothered me that only one man was the designated villain and the initial 'kill all the Native Americans' song was just disregarded immediately after everyone saw that Pocahontas and John Smith were in loooove. -- Jane Michael

Although the movie is rife with inaccuracies, like the age difference and romantic plotline, something minute that deeply irked me about this film was that John Smith had an American accent. At times it was almost borderline British, but overall he didn’t sound like he had just come on a ship from England, even though the other settlers did. Further, a detail that stands out to me is the fact that Disney chose to go with the “Pocahontas was a princess” narrative over the fact that she had dozens of siblings and was not next in line for the throne. This was probably done on purpose so that she would fit into the “Disney Princess” lineup, but it is inaccurate either way. Finally, Kocoum’s death is totally false and was clearly included for dramatic effect since Pocahontas marries him in real life. I think they could have killed off any other character to similar effect, like Pocahontas’s friend, but instead Disney did just enough research to pull some names from real life and then put its own creative spin on the story. -- Sasha Poletes

Disney seemed to try and make it seem like the Natives were doing magic when doing a ritual with the fire. Another one is with Kocoum. She married him in real life but in the film, she is very hesitant to marry him and he ultimately dies by the fictional British character Thomas.(Sophie Weber)

One of the biggest errors is how Pocahontas is shown. They show her as an adult and formulate this relationship between her and John Smith when she was really 12 around the time Smith came. Pocahontas also was married to John Ralfe, and not John Smith. Furthermore, her relationship and engagement to Kocoum was also incorrect since it did not seem like everyone involved agreed. Pocahontas in the movie did not wish to get married to him, which historically is incorrect because in Native tribes everyone would have to agree on the union before they married. -Teresa Felipe

The first few minutes of the story start out incredibly historically accurate. It is a tale about the Virginia company which was on an expedition to find gold and glory in 1607. The sentiment put in place that the “New World” was bountiful and full of promise was also true. Even the rat running up the gangplank at the beginning was historically accurate. After that, it gets a little hinky with the magic trees, Pocahontas being older, a sentient hummingbird, and so forth. -Annika

====== How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======

It’s honestly kind of weird to me that they chose this narrative of Pocahontas so strongly allying with the English because she thought that one of the guys was cute (and yes I know that is an oversimplification but still). There is this quote from the author of Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma, Camilla Townsend, who said, “I think the reason [this portrayal of the story between Pocahontas and John Smith] has been so popular—not among Native Americans, but among people of the dominant culture—is that it's very flattering to us. The idea is that this is a ‘good Indian.’ She admires the white man, admires Christianity, admires the culture, wants to have peace with these people, is willing to live with these people rather than her own people, marry him rather than one of her own. That whole idea makes people in white American culture feel good about our history. That we were not doing anything wrong to the Indians but really were helping them and the ‘good’ ones appreciated it.” (Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-pocahontas-180962649/) I feel like this is an important stance on the movie, as they alter John Smith into a heroic, kind man who goes out of his way to understand people and try to forge peace. As such, Pocahontas was aged up for the sake of being his love interest, her story, her appearance, so much of what made Pocahontas herself was altered for the sake of a more dramatic and fulfilling love narrative. The choice of this interpretation is highly questionable and one I look forward to discussing in class. -- Logan Kurtz

The most glaring error to me is contained within the structure of the story. Rewatching the film, I realized how quickly everything happens. The entire movie takes place within 3-4 days, I realized, and by the end it is implied that this was the only major conflict between the natives and settlers. It implies peace from here on out between the two groups because of the touching love of Smith and Pocahontas, and the only threat to this peace is and was all along, the fault of a single villain who is promptly taken care of when his villainy is revealed. The abuses suffered by the Native Americans at the hands of European colonists are downplayed and condensed into a days-long conflict that was then solved by one heroic act. - Maris Tiller

The film puts Pocahontas and the Native Americans in a very positive light. The film villainizes the English and shows the Native Americans, mainly Pocahontas, as parents teaching the English children how to be careful with the land. This is almost the reverse of what the historical sources say. -Annika Sypher

As we watch this movie, we need to keep in mind that it was written and designed specifically for children. With this in mind, the directors change Pocahontas' age from a young girl to a full-grown 'princess,' changing what would be a great difference in age to just a few years between Pocahontas and Smith. Many of the conflicts were also heavily modified so that the suffering, disease, and hardships that come with war were either heavily downplayed to being completely removed, simply for the sake of the children. -Zack Steinbaum

====== How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made? ======

The movie works as a primary source in that it shows the bias taught or showed to children in the specific time period that it was released (1995). During this time period, when representing what happened in the colonies, there was still a large bias that most of the English saw the Natives as people just like them. Additionally, the film depicts the Natives as more peaceful than they probably were.

This movie as a primary source about the time it was made really drives home that the exaggerated story initially told by and about John Smith as the hero was still the consensus as the "truth." It's telling of the persistence of a sort-of "white-savior" complex within history and media and it really wasn't released that long ago - it's interesting that some older films on Disney+ now have a disclaimer about discriminatory content left in to be true to the time and acknowledge past mistakes but slightly more recent films like Pocahontas and Mulan do not.  --Jane Michael

Though this is a film primarily for children and general audiences, we can gain an understanding of how it reflects how people thought of history at the time it was made. We can assume certain things about the creators and their view of history. There is an idea present throughout the film that the natives’ ways are “simpler”, but important. However, the importance placed on their culture is how it can teach the white men to truly “live”. The white men represent modernity and “civilization” and the natives represent a return to a “simpler time”. This shows what people (and the creators of the film) generally thought about Native Americans at the time: they had “simpler” cultures that were important not for their own sake, but because they could teach us in the modern day how to get in touch with nature and live more freely. This is the lesson the film is meant to impart on its audience, not any rendering of actual historical events. - Maris Tiller

This movie reveals multiple things about Disney and general attitudes at the time it was made. Firstly, non-White stories where important to Disney, since the protagonist of the film is Pocahontas, a Native American woman. However, Disney also made sure that they did not completely villainize the settlers, and Governor Ratcliffe was targeted for his greed rather than his racist views. The movie rides a delicate balance between portraying Native Americans in a positive light and the settlers in a negative light without completely villainizing every single settler. A quote I found intersesting was when Governor Ratcliffe says something along the lines of “why on earth would they attack us?” and his assistant says “because we stole their land and cut down their trees and dug up their earth.” This is probably the closest Disney comes to actually criticizing the settlers. They sort of touch on the fact that the settlers are in the wrong, but do not overtly express it, which leads me to believe that Disney didn't want to raise controversy or lose money over obviously villainizing all the settlers. -- Sasha Poletes

Disney had produced many princess movies by this point but had not made one about a real person. They were all based on fairy tales. This is the first one that is based off of a historical character, but they did not care to make the movie accurate. Instead they wanted a romantic story that could supposedly teach kids about history. (Sophie Weber)

It definitely shows the sentiments towards the Native Americans and the English. The movie depicts the English as heartless conquerors who take over lands and steamroll indigenous people. This is not entirely untrue but is still significant to show the emotions of the time. The movie’s distinct showing of magic is also important because it is indicative of a society that promotes or is ok with magic, which did not happen until recently.  -Annika Sypher

===== So What Question: =====
Disney’s Pocahontas is a mixed bag. On the one hand it presented a favorable depiction of Native Americans and top lessons of compassion and understanding to young audiences. The film, however, doesn't really try to convey any of the history it claims to be based off. At the end of the day, Disney's Pocahontas is a simplification of history, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to the individual viewer and the collective societal audience overtime. -Lucca Crowe

Obviously the film was not at all accurate to the actual historical events we read about, but I really wish they could have added some amount of plot or comment about the colonists' struggle to get sufficient food. I think it could have helped to forward the themes of mutual respect and working together that the film emphasized. -Lucca Crowe

When I watched this movie with my roommate, she said a comment that summed up my thoughts; "If you view it all as fanfiction, it’s fine." And whether it is truly fine or not is a different question, but it really is like the writers were writing their completely own story about two historical figures. While being jarringly inaccurate and glossing over the struggles and horrible actions for the sake of an important message, it is also creating a favorable depiction of Native Americans and providing them with agency in the film. However, is bringing awareness to a story worth changing the key details? -- Logan Kurtz (Also, just a heads up! It seems like a lot of people's posts were deleted, so make sure to check!)

I had not seen Pocahontas since I was very young and while rewatching it- I was able to understand the biases and misinformation that was presented. I do believe that it did a successful job in showing that both the Native Indians and settlers misunderstood each other but there were many details that were incorrect. Regardless of the inaccuracies, I can understand why the director of the film would not want to include everything in the film because children watch it and it would not be as “dramatic”.  -- Erika Lambert

After rewatching for the first time since I was very young and too dumb to pick up on anything other than 'haha raccoon friend', the imagery that Disney uses for Pocahontas herself and a lot of the other depictions of other Native American characters is very strange and racially motivated. The nature imagery is a little heavy-handed, as if they couldn't find any other positive quality about Native Americans, and there are a LOT of parallels and silhouettes used to compare and almost depict Pocahontas as an animal. My roommate also pointed out that the animation made the Native American characters' skin actually red. Although the story could be interpreted as positive or educational for children (which it isn't even) there are a lot of subtle comparisons drawn and blatantly stereotyped imagery that could and probably did give impressionable young children a warped perception of Native Americans. -- Jane Michael

I haven’t seen the film in a long time but after doing the readings and having the lecture we did on Tuesday, I can definitely say the accuracy the movie portrayed was not what could have been a very well informative movie. Although before I mention the inaccuracy, I think it’s important to state that Disney has a history of taking tales or old stories and turning them into something completely different than the original plot. That being said some of the key differences I saw in the movie were the dynamic of the characters, whether they were characters added or taken out. In the film, Pocahontas’s best friend, Nakoma, made appearances and played a part in leading the other native Americans to capture John Smith but that couldn’t have happened because at that point Pocahontas never even met John Smith. Also the romantic relationship that was induced by both characters offers a very disturbing factor considering Pocahontas was around 12 years old while John Smith was over 30 years old. When I was younger, I thought it was cute at first (I was a child what else could I have known) but when it came to learning history about Jamestown it was unnerving how the producers took that and ran with it. Another character was Thomas, who was part of the arriving settlers along with John Smith. His part in Disney’s version of the story was that he had a leading hand in murdering Kocoum. When in reality, Kocoum never died in the contacts of Thomas. aLSO I noticed how in class we talked about how in the tribes, individuals could marry freely and it wasn’t arranged but in Pocahontas, Chief Powhatan never truly gave Pocahontas a choice, he kind of just expected her to follow along. Another thing I noticed in the film was how it wasn’t shown how the colonist struggled with settling in. Not to mention how quickly they built their wooden houses and fence area. I do get its a movie so everything happened so quickly but it was interesting to see with how much one knows now. - Paula Perez

Overall, considering the movie is for children I do think it was beautiful. I mean the producers could have definitely done better about the historic accuracy but considering they had a talking willow tree, a dynamic between a pug, hummingbird and raccoon and the unrealistic landscape (the waterfalls in Jamestown) its not what they truly want to sell. The animation is what I think was beautiful and so when it comes to history, to understand the main points of what happen? Or at least a quick view of it? It was okay. - Paula Perez

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International