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? ======
This movie was heavily exaggerated, but still contained some of bits of the truth of what actually happened. Disney romanticized John Smith’s and Pocahontas’s relationship, but from historical sources we know that John Smith was the first Englishmen Pocahontas met. They also got right that disagreements quickly formed between the two different groups, which later broke out into the Native Americans attacking the colonizers. I also thought Disney did a good job of expressing how arrogant and money hungry the Englishmen were, specifically with the governor. The colonists’ only way of getting along with the Native Americans was if they accepted the English culture, where it’s more as if they were “saving” them. -Matt

To be blunt in answering what works in using Pocahontas as a potential secondary source: not much. The list of things that the film gets right about history seem to be in very, very broad strokes. People like Governor Radcliffe, John Smith, Powhatan, and Pocahontas did exist. The English did land in Jamestown, Virginia in the early 17th century. There was an undeniable tension between the invading Colonists and the Indigenous Americans who occupied the region. Once one dares to try to get into even the slightly specific facts, they’ll find very little of historical value that would justify using Pocahontas as a secondary source. - John M.

Frankly, this movie did little to stay faithful to the colorful history of the Jamestown settlement. Despite this, there was still some crumbs of truth, yet not many. Mainly, the most egregious aspect of the movie is the love story between Pocahontas and John Smith. Despite how interesting this makes the story; it of course didn’t happen. However, from what little we do know from the contemporary sources, John Smith and Pocahontas did meet. Yet, in the movie Disney makes the choice of making the characters close in age (alas the love story) yet according to sources Pocahontas was a young child when she would’ve met John Smith. Another character the filmmakers got right (yet extremely exaggerated) was Governor Ratcliffe. According to sources from the time he was a problematic leader and ultimately was killed by the Native Americans. --- Thomas K

Despite the over exaggeration in some aspects of the film such as talking trees or being able to communicate with animals in some instances. The most notable piece that the film was able to get correct during this time period was the tension between the English settlers and the Native Americans. The two sides were contrasting against each other in which the Powhatan Indians wanted to live a simple life and live off the ways of their land. However, the English were rooted off the motto of "God, Gold, Glory" by any means possible which meant intruding on Native American land and driving them off their land to meet their goals. Throughout the film, the two sides were at breaking point with one another especially after Kocoum's death. The movie also was able to get Pocahontas's role as a peacemaker. In reality, she played a key role in being able to maintain the relations amongst the Jamestown colonists and the Native Americans. --Alex

Disney is known for its heavy romanticization of historical content and this movie is no exception, however there are some things that the film does portray in an accurate manner. For instance, in the introduction, we are shown the gendered division of labor that many native societies exhibited; women tending to the crops and men hunting. Additionally, the Virginia Company's expectations and the settlement's original intention of getting rich quick and finding gold is fairly accurate. The fact that no gold was found in the Jamestown settlement is also true. Another thing the film unfortunately gets right is the racism, dehumanization and "othering" that the colonists and natives alike often showed towards each other. One is reminded of that haunting lyric; "barely even human". The film also wasn't wrong in the sense that Pocahontas did indeed play a role in preventing a conflict, although her role was almost entirely removed from what was portrayed in the film.
-- Owen

There are some key points that actually happened that are portrayed within the Disney film. For one thing, characters including Pocahontas, Powhatan, John Smith, Governor Ratcliffe, and Kocoum were all real people. For instance Kocoum was a marriage prospect for Pocahontas in the movie, and was her husband in real life. Another aspect that the film got right was the fact that John Smith did in fact have to sail back to England due to an injury. However, in real life it was years after he arrived, not within the same year as the movie portrays. He also was sent back for severe burns from a gunpowder explosion, not a gunshot as the movie depicts. This makes sense though as its the less violent and more kid friendly portrayal of the movie. I believe Disney, in some aspect, wanted to make a movie that was accurate, or at least respectful, but due to the kid friendly nature of Disney productions, the story of Jamestown was a bit too unkind, unhappy, and complicated for a family centric audience leading to the plot to be watered down to an unrecognizable account of events. The film also seems to follow John Smiths story that was published and while I'm not entirely sure, this could be what the film makers thought was a true primary source. In conclusion, Disney's Pocahontas is a story of fiction mixed with an untrue story, making it a fairly unreliable secondary source of information. - Emma Galvin

The movie serves as a secondary source since it interprets and illustrates historical events rather than presenting primary recollections. Even though there was a lot of inaccuracies in Pocahontas, there were also some accuracies. For one, the movie does show some correct representation of the British during the time. For example, John Smith along with the other colonists referred to Natives as "savages" which is accurate. They were also seen destroying land and trees, claiming land as theirs, and being righteous. At one point of the movie, John Smith called her people "uncivilized" which would be historically accurate. Additionally, they were looking for gold and thought Virginia would be filled with it, again which is something accurate. (Hannah E.)

Pocahontas can be considered a secondary source in that it interprets historical events than showing first-hand accounts. A secondary source provides information about a subject from a different perspective, often using artistic interpretation, which is the case with the film. What the movies got right is that they did use real people and the right people. They didn't make john smith Spanish or French. They also get right how the British attitude was like towards the natives. They thought of them as savages. The British lust for gold and riches was also shown very well here. - jedidia Kazadi
====== Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
I think the biggest error with their historical accuracy was John Smith’s and Pocahontas’s relationship. They were no where near close in age, Pocahontas was a young child while Smith was an experienced traveler in his thirties. Displaying Pocahontas as more of a princess/special one was another mistake. She was one of dozens of the chief’s children, and although she was considered the favorite she wasn’t as important as Disney made her look to be. Many people believe that she saved John Smith’s life from execution by her father, but actually he didn’t need saving. His life was going to be spared regardless. - Matt

Some of the historical inaccuracies that I noticed on my watchthrough involved Kocoum, Pocahontas’ first husband. In the movie it is framed like Pocahontas doesn’t want to marry Kocoum, and doesn’t fancy him at all whatsoever. But this would not have been the case as Pocahontas most definitely approved of her marriage with Kocoum in reality. In the movie Kocoum is murdered by an English colonist when he finds Pocahontas with John Smith and then more Native Americans come and capture John Smith. First of all, Kocuom does get killed by English colonists, but not until much later, actually when Pocahontas is captured. Secondly, this moment of John Smith’s capture should be where Pocahontas sees a white person for the first time, but in the movie she is already thoroughly in love with him (gross). - Ewan

The ending of this film is much closer to a happy ending than the reality of the situation and tension which existed between Powhatan’s people and the people of Jamestown. The film implies that the issue has been resolved and that these two different groups have reached an understanding and are going to be able to exist alongside one another and respect one another in the future. This is not reality that existed following the supposed rescue of John Smith however. Any rescue that may have occurred was likely misunderstood by Smith in the first place and did not ease tensions in the long run. This story has a much less happy ending than Disney chose to imply in this film. - Rickie

The most notable historical inaccuracy from the film was Pocahontas and John Smith's relationship which is misconstrued from actuality. In the film she is 18 while Smith is 20 whereas in reality the two met when she was 11 and Smith was 27. This shortening of the age gap speaks to how Disney wanted to portray princesses in the 1990s. Pocohontas in the film was able to display all the qualities of a Disney princess from her ability to communicate with animals to her kindness and positivity which is how Disney wants to market their Disney princesses. Another inaccuracy is Disney's notion of having a happy ending for the younger audiences. Actuality is much sadder in which the two rarely saw each other again; Pocahontas would die of an unspecified illness during her journey back to Virginia from England in 1617 while Smtih also passed away from a unknown illness in 1631. It's important to pay attention to how actual history is different when watching the film because it's portrayed by Disney's agendas for it's princesses at the time. --Alex

I feel like there were a lot of historical inaccuracies in the movie. The biggest inaccuracies in Pocahontas were with their ages and the fact that they were romantically linked as my other classmates pointed out. Pocahontas was 11/12 when she saw John Smith for the first time and he was around 34, in the movie she was portrayed as at least 18. In addition, she didn't see him very often, making it impossible for her to become close to him (on top of their age difference). Interestingly, the fact that she was presented as the beloved child was another significant error I noted. Pocahontas actually had to work hard to be her father's (Powhatan) favorite child, she basically had to compete with her many siblings. She eventually did get there but after she got kidnapped by the British it took Powhatan a couple of months to really think of her. (Hannah E.)

There were many problems with historical accuracy in Pocahontas. To begin, Pocahontas is encountered by the English at the age of around 10, not an adult. Additionally, Powhatan is portrayed as a completely loving, protective father... of one. There is no hint or mention of any siblings, when in reality, Pocahontas was one of the youngest least "important" daughters of Powhatan, whom he sent to the English to negotiate the release of men. The father that is shown in the film couldn't be imagined putting his daughter into a potentially harmful situation. Lastly, there is no mention that John became romantically involved with Pocahontas nor that she saved him from certain death anywhere in John Smith's memoirs. --Owen

Disney's 1990 retelling of Pocahontas was chalked full of historical inaccuracies. The biggest of which were in Pocahontas's appearance, behaviors, and relationship with John Smith. John Smith came to her town when she was only 10 -11 years old, while he was 27. Despite Disney’s narrative, the two were never romantically involved. In fact, John Smith was feared by many Indigenous children in the area as he was known to enter villages and demand food and supplies at gunpoint. The real-life Pocahontas was completely different in comparison to her movie counterpart. She was not the strong, independent negotiator who brokered peace between her people and the colonists as shown in the movies. Instead, she was a loyal adviser and was regarded as her father's favorite, a position she worked hard to cultivate. During Smith's time in Jamestown, the two shared little contact and remained devoted to their established communities.    --Sam Barlow

This movie, in my opinion, definitely picked and chose what it wanted to be accurate about. The people under the Powhatan Confederacy did speak Algonquian, and the cloak that Powhatan was wearing did exist in real life. However, there is likely no way Pocahontas would've known English as immediately as she did. In that regard, Disney took many creative liberties to tell the narrative they wanted to get across. I thought it was particularly interesting that they were accurate in ways that are deeply important to a culture's identity - like their language - but chose to disregard the main character's age and status in the tribe. Pocahontas was a favorite of her father, that part is known to be true, but the movie negates all of the work she had to do to get to that status, and all of the other people she was fighting her father's attention for. Additionally, I thought it was striking that Kokoum was ignored as a significant person in Pocahontas's life. He was her first and intended husband, and that would've been a much more significant deal than how Disney framed it.  - Caty

The biggest error is that Pocahontas was around 10 years old when she first encountered John Smith, who was in his late twenties. Their relationship was not romantic at all. Another error is that the relationship with the natives and British was much more complex. From a history standpoint, the natives were already doing diplomacy before John smith was kidnapped. - jedidia Kazadi

One historical inaccuracy in the movie //Pocahontas// is that Pocahontas had been asked for her hand in marriage before she met John Smith. While it is possible that this could be true there is no historical evidence to support this, Disney most likely added this to the movie to cause drama and since they aged her up to be about 18 or 19 it would be appropriate timing in Pocahontas’s life. Another historical inaccuracy is that Chief Powhatan himself was going to beat John Smith before Pocahontas saved him. Whether you believe John Smith’s account of this story or not, in his account Powhatan orders him to be killed rather than doing it himself. —Maddy W

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

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

I think that this movie says a lot about the time that it was made by Disney in the 1990s, specifically about Disney’s strategy of making movies at the time. Pocahontas is considered one of the movies of the Disney Renaissance, a period in the late 20th century where Disney produced several successful animated films. A lot of these animated films are period pieces on varying times in history like Hercules, Mulan, Aladdin, Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Beauty and the Beast. Pocahontas is one of many of these renaissance films that leans into a historical fiction angle, and Disney during this time made movies like that to much success. - Ewan

I don’t know much about the state of Native American rights and activism at the time this film was made but I do know that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed in 1990. This shows that there progress being made at the time in the recognition of the acts of violence and dehumanization that Native American populations have faced throughout American history, so it is possible this increased attention on issues of Native American interest motivated Disney to produce a film that focuses on this topic. I would be interested to know if there were more similar events occurring around this time as well. - Rickie

Disney's Pocahontas was a positive step toward Native American representation in film. Pocahontas was depicted as smart, kind, beautiful, and strong, which contrasts with the super-offensive portrayals that appear in most other forms of media. But, I think it is important to recognize that Disney’s Pocahontas is historically inaccurate and that their highly fictionalized version of her story is a way for people to make themselves feel better about the horrible things they have done and continue to do to Native Americans, including Pocahontas herself. Pocahontas's story was romanticized to fit the Disney brand and to make her seem more appealing to children in order to make more money in ticket sales as well as future merchandise.        --Sam Barlow

As a primary source of the time it was made, Disney's Pocahontas sheds a lot of light on the sentiments not just Disney held at the time, but what the common understanding of the time surrounding Pocahontas and John Smith was in the 1990s. It should be pointed out that despite the lack of accuracy in the movie, most of the voice actors for the Native Americans were in fact Native American themselves, or of Native American descent. Additionally, the one Scottish settler was voiced by a Scottish man. So in that regard, Disney did not skip steps. This shows that in the 1990s, there were moves towards better representation not just on the screen, but behind it as well. However, I feel that this movie as a primary source shows that the American people were not necessarily interested in what the reality of the time period was. This is a romanticization of the beginnings of a brutal and long history of racism and colonization in early American history, and Disney's handling of it at the time of this movie's creation can lend to their belief of how historical events and people should be interpreted. - Caty

A lot of what I think is going on in this re-telling of the story is indicative of the mid 90s. There was a feminist push at the time for strong female leads in film and tv to "choose their own path" and buck the norm. A lot of female characters had sexual freedom and didn't feel the need to be married in order to be content. The fact that Pocahontas' biggest dilemma for the first half of the film is whether or not to marry or to have her own adventures feels outdated and sexist now because that is not often a storyline for men. Why does she have to choose one or the other? Inevitably, she ends up with a guy anyway, to the point where they really stretched history just to give her a man. This is still sexist, however, I do think that in the 90s, women's independence was being celebrated and this film seems to have had that goal in mind. I was 3 when this film came out, and I was obsessed with the character of Pocahontas and looked up to her until age 5 or 6. She resonated with me because of how strong and brave she was depicted. In my experience of being the right demographic that Disney was aiming for in this time period, the film accomplished what it was meant to. I think its absolutely a primary source for what feminism looked like to a young girl growing up in 1995. - Jennifer

====== The "So What" Question ======
I think this question is asking about the significance of the movie. Pocahontas made a major impact on Americans, as most of us don’t have a deep understanding of the true history of Native Americans. Since many only got their information from movies like these, it made them form a general stereotype of initial meetings when colonizers came to North America. Disney portrayed their meetings as a lot friendlier than they probably were. They did still show how war quickly broke out, so there is still definitely a lot of truth to this film. -Matt

Why does it matter that Disney’s Pocahontas was so blatantly flagrant with regards to its treatment of historical accuracy? The film grossed close to $350 million dollars worldwide, was viewed by countless millions of people, and has become something of a cultural staple as part of the lineup of Disney’s Renaissance period. For many children growing up in the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, and today, this version of the history of our nation’s earliest permanent English settlement is the one that they will know and spread. The founding of Jamestown was not a romantic getaway undertaken by a group of heroic Englishmen, and the relationship between the Colonists and the Powhatan Indians - and all Indigenous groups in the region - was not soothed over with songs and a single act of heroism undertaken by Pocahontas. This movie isn’t just a whitewash of some of our country’s earliest history; that alone would not deserve this amount of notoriety. The issue is that it was and continues to be a popular whitewash of that history. This says nothing of the film’s long-lasting and negative impact on the greater understanding of American Indians, perpetuating harmful narratives such as the “Indian princess” and “inherent connection to nature” myths that continue to persist to this day. - John M.

While this movie is a mostly inaccurate retelling of Pocahontas, Jamestown, and John Smith, it can be a good way to introduce the topic to children and families who might be unfamiliar with the story of how Jamestown was settled. For me, when I watch something that supposedly takes root in history, I research the real people of that story to see what was true about a particular depiction and what was false. This movie might be a gateway for many to delve into the true story of Pocahontas. However, I also know that not everyone likes history or to go down a research rabbit hole. In that instance, Disney should have a disclaimer that while it uses factual names and settings, that the story they curated is in no way the true retelling of events. - Emma Galvin

Despite the problematic nature of the film, Pocahontas was a massive success for Disney that resulted in them making a sequel (which isn’t quite as good.) Despite that, the Disney film is almost timeless for children and has captured the imaginations of children for almost 30 years. Why is this important? Well, this film could conceivably be responsible for helping younger children get interested in history. Beyond that, this film can also be used as a case study of the consequences of rewriting history to make into a film. For one, the film depicts the settling of Jamestown as a time of tension between whites and Natives that was ultimately settled after a big disagreement. Yet, as we know the conflict between the whites and Natives was gruesome, brutal, and exploded many times in the early years of the settlement. Personally, I feel as though Disney should include some short of disclaimer or notice indicting that this film is a highly colorful, dramatized, and watered down telling of the story.---- Thomas K

Even though the main plot line of Pocahontas is a huge historical inaccuracy all together and watching this movie through a historical lens probably ruined it for me, I still think that’s important because while it might not have all the facts straight it can still introduce children to Pocahontas, Jamestown, settlements,  New World exploration, and Native American culture/customs at a relatively young age. —Maddy W

Edit summary

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