The film, while generally attempting to portray Natives as accurately as possible, still botches some details by Westernizing their characters and their society. For example, the women are shown harvesting crops and the men are seen hunting and fishing. Based on current knowledge, this is accurate. However, the crops were shown as being planted in very neat rows where they were mixed together with various other crops as well. Planting crops in lines was not a known Native practice. Additionally, while the faith practices of Native tribes did believe that each and every object in nature held a spirit, a belief known as Animism, the Weeping Willow tree was not introduced into the Virginia area for several hundred years AFTER the events of Pocahontas would have taken place. Although, quite ironically considering the previously stated issue, when Pocahontas offers John Smith a sack of Willow Bark to help with the pain this is actually medically accurate as the bark of the Willow tree is widely known as an anti-inflammatory and painkiller dating as far back in medical history as the Assyrians and Sumerians. — Cooney, Corey R. 2016/09/07 13:27

I mean obviously Disney is for kids, and this version is a heavy ‘glossing over’ of what really happened. To begin the inaccuracies, her age, the “love at first sight” aspect that adds to disney notion that ‘love conquers all and ‘happily every after’. She was not a voluptuous young woman when she met John Smith but a ten- to twelve-year-old girl, and John Smith was a thirty-something mercenary who more resembled a brick than a blonde god. I notice how also, the life depicted in back in London was very drab and the life depicted in the New World was colorful, with trees and sunset skies. According to an article about the political correctness of Pochontas, “Disney also hired Shirley (Little Dove) Custalow-McGowan, a Powhatan who travels through Virginia teaching the history and culture of her people, to work as consultant for the film. When she saw the early rushes, she said, “My heart sorrowed within me . . .Ten-year-old Pocahontas has become twenty-year-old Pocahontas. The movie was no longer historically accurate.” -Disney's `politically correct' Pocahontas. By: Kilpatrick, Jacquelyn, Cineaste, 00097004, Dec95, Vol. 21, Issue 4. — Sciadini, Natalie 2016/09/07 3:27

Looking at all of the inaccuracies in the movie I can’t help but come back to two issues, Pocahontas’s age and the fact there is a love story. The change in Pocahontas’s age makes her at the age where she has to be choosing between freedom and marriage. Making the famous Disney love interest. If she was at her proper age of 10-12 a love interest would be out of the picture, but would that sell? Does Disney and the film industry need a love interest to make a film successful, and does a historical inaccuracy get out weighed by the selling value of a love interest? — Brooks Anna R. 2016/09/07 16:03

A huge error in the film is the way John Smith is portrayed in the film. He acts as if he does not care about getting rich and excited about the new land they have discovered but in reality he did want to purge the land in order to be successful. He shown that he is the exception to the greediness the colonists held, which makes him more likeable in the film. Smith also did not like the Indians at all and thought them as savages so to portray him as the opposite in the film is wrong, it’s an insult to the Native American history. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/09/07 16:09

We all know that Pocahontas’s age is wrong, and the love story between her and John Smith never happened. I also would like to point out that the movie made it seem like Pocahontas was an only child, rather than having to work to make herself stand out among her brothers and sisters. And while John Smith I’m sure would agree with how he was portrayed as brave and heroic, I don’t think the men who really followed him liked him quite as much as they did in the movie. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/09/07 17:18

Pocahontas is loaded with more historical inaccuracies than just talking trees named ‘Grandmother Willow.” In class, we discussed how Native Americans on the East coast were able to marry as they chose without the arrangement of their parents’. In the Mel Gibson version of the story, Powhatan urges his daughter to marry because Kocuam will “be a good husband. He is loyal and strong. He will build you a good house.” However, historically, the hypothetical married couple would not have needed a house as they would have gone to live with her mother. Secondly, there is a European value in the scene between Powhatan and Pocahontas where Kocuam sought Powhatan’s approval before speaking with her. Would this not have traditionally been a mutual decision that the two brought forward to the council? I do at least appreciate that Kocuam, her real life first husband, was characterized along with a character named after her and John Ralfe’s son, Thomas. — Rainford, Lauren E. 2016/09/07 21:12

In an attempt to turn the story of Pocahontas, or at least John Smith's version of the story, into a fairy tale, they get a lot of things wrong. Virginia looks nothing like it is depicted in the movie (actually it looks more like the Rocky Mountain Wilderness, then it does the swampy Chesapeake Bay.). The trees are too tall and too big. The Powhatan people looked nothing like they were depicted, and are dressed as the stereotypical feathers and elk skin Indian. The English armor looks Spanish. There are no humming birds I’ve seen in Virginia. This is all on top of all the historical inaccuracies. Gaddie Jason W.S. 2016/09/07 4:46

I think you all are missing the glaring issue in this movie, which was the tree could talk!! No, in actuality there was much wrong with this movie. The ages were not correct for both Pocahontas and John looked to be in their 20s. Also, there was only one boat that brought them there, when there was three in actuality. Another problem is how John Smith became injured and returned to England. In the movie he was shot, but in history he had a gunpowder bag blow up in his lap. — Houff, Nicholas T. 2016/09/07 21:16

I found it ironic that Kocum asked Powhatan's permission to marry Pocahontas when that is a paternal-focused, as well as European based, tradition. The geographical errors were arguably the most glaring in that the rivers were not crystal clear and filled with adorable otters but swampy, infested, and filled with the creatures that were likely not Pocahontas's “friends” (the rivers of course did not lead down to majestically cascading waterfalls, though I'd love to have a waterfall right out my hometown backdoor). I also do not recall that John Smith had been on many voyages before coming to Jamestown but that that was his first one. Obviously Disney eliminated the polygamous realities of the time, as well as the tremendous age gap and lack of romantic relations between John Smith and Pocahontas. Because then they would have to rate one of their cartoons pg 13 and not have a happily ever after, so I guess it was worth sacrificing the accuracy for (don't get me wrong, I'm sadly a sucker for this film!) … — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/07 20:57

The most glaring error I found (although it took me some time to pick up on it) was that Pocahontas was only called Pocahontas as a byname. Her name in public among her people was either Amonute or Matoaka. The other main error I found was that John Rolfe was nowhere to be found in the entire film. As most people have already said, she was much younger than John Smith and had no romantic relationship with him, that the Native groups living in that area of Virginia had arranged marriages, and that she was not the only child of Powhatan. What caught my attention throughout the film was the fact that women are not portrayed as particularly powerful. Grandmother Willow gives Pocahontas advice and Powhatan refers to her mother as someone her people revered, but a male elder and Powhatan seem to be the most powerful, and there are very few females seen at the council scene. There are (not very surprisingly) no references to the many deaths at Jamestown as a result of famine and disease. — Carey Megan A. 2016/09/07 23:41

Aside from periodically bursting into song dialogue, Disney’s romanticized rendition of these accounts, though founded on historic similarities, does appear to contain a number of factual errors of which several are (somewhat) considered common knowledge and/or had been discussed during Tuesday’s lecture such as names, ages, romance (or lack thereof) and cultures. Further analysis of these sources produced additional inaccuracies of which the more notable are; the initial meeting of Smith and Amonute (Pocahontas) which was not immediate nor under civil circumstances as the movie suggests; topographic elements depicted by the film which are incongruous to the physical geography of Tidewater Virginia (as explained in exploratory aspects of the reading); and perhaps the gravest fallacy wherein the movie failed to portray, was the high mortality rate suffered by the increasingly malnourished settlers via starvation and disease. This body count/reality was undoubtedly repressed from the plotline to accommodate a G-rating for a child demographic. — Blount, David M. 2016/09/08 02:27

In Disney’s Pocahontas, there are many inaccuracies in the film. It all starts with a palpable connection between John Smith and Pocahontas. First, Pocahontas is around 12 when John Smith (30) came to Jamestown, which is a weird fact for Disney to ignore. On top of that, Disney completely skips the fact that the two would have a culture and language barrier when they first meet. The love story, when looking at historical educated guesses, is just weird even for a Disney movie. There are more inaccuracies but this one was the first to come to mind.

Although they are minor, several historical inaccuracies plagued the back of my mind as I watched the film. Firstly, the film portrays the men who arrived in Virginia as workingmen while in reality they were affluent, ill-prepared, and ill-dressed (did no one tell them that velvet was SO out of fashion in 1608?). Secondly, as someone who grew up in Gloucester, Virginia, in the thick of all this action, the geological inaccuracies are hard to ignore: no waterfalls exist in the Historic Triangle. The film’s portrayal of the relationship between Pocahontas and John Smith is also unnerving. Pocahontas was 10-12 when she first met the 35 year old John Smith. However, the film romanticizes whatever interactions may or may not have occurred between the two. Lastly, while I am no expert on the indigenous corn of the 1600’s, I find it hard to believe that it would look like the homogenously-golden, genetically-modified corn that was portrayed in the film. Milroy, Nancy 2016/09/08 06:57

I understand this movie is in no way a historical masterpiece, with that aside I feel the movie was an appropriate interpretation for Disney to take on. Firstly I would like to pose the Question: If it was not a story with actual historical characters, would this movie have been a good interpretation?

The film made an accurate portrayal was the type of colonists that came to Jamestown. They were all youngish men coming from a variety of backgrounds. You have the noble looking for power, the trained soldiers looking for glory, and the average man looking to find his fortune. The film does a decent job in representing the different types of individuals searching for their personal glories. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/09/06 18:54

I agree with Catherine in that the film does do a well job in portraying the men, especially in the sense that they are there for personal glories. Heck, there is even a musical number dedicated to their personal glories. There is also a line in the song where the guy says basically says when he goes back to Virginia even the king will bask in his glory and lord him. Also, pat on the back to Disney for getting the company’s name right! The first musical number mentions that it is the Virginia Company. Imagine what it would have been like if Disney messed that up. Weird to think that two of the musical numbers that happen in the first 30 minutes of the movie are pretty accurate, except for maybe John Smith scaling a cliff, that most likely did not happen, if it did, props to John Smith for being that athletic. — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/09/06 21:25

When looking at the movie Pocahontas there are a lot of things that could be brought up regarding inaccuracies, but surprisingly there are a few things that Disney got right! Looking at the relationship with Pocahontas and her best friend, whose name I can’t find anywhere, shows the bond between the women in the tribe. This is especially shown when Pocahontas goes to mother willow for council and advice, showing the importance of elderly women and their power that they had in the tribe. — Brooks Anna R. 2016/09/07 11:32

Things the story got right, Smiths character; a well traveled explorer. Evil Governor Ratcliffe, has a pet pug; pugs were brought over from china, and popular during that time. They got the scene of saving Smith from being killed, but we don't know for sure if that happened the way it did, but visually they were up to par. I didn't notice this as a kid but the lyrics to the opening song “The Virginia Company” are: “In sixteen hundred seven We sailed the open sea For glory, God and gold And the Virginia Company” According to an article, “the Native Americans on the team had other interests. Russell Means, the voice of Powhatan, likes the film, even though they were willing to take his advice about a detail such as the father referring to Pocahontas as Daughter instead of her name” -Disney's `politically correct' Pocahontas. By: Kilpatrick, Jacquelyn, Cineaste, 00097004, Dec95, Vol. 21, Issue 4 — Sciadini, Natalie 2016/09/07 3:27

Wow, totally did not know that about the pugs, Natalie! — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/07 21:10

I also agree with Catherine’s point that the film stayed true to depicting the colonists’ as young white men. To add onto that point, Pocahontas from the beginning emphasized the English desire to obtain gold and even references the Spain’s success with finding gold. In the film, there is a song dedicated to finding gold and the film has scenes of the colonists digging in the soil for gold. Pocahontas shows the colonists’ failure to find gold. Governor Ratcliffe in the film along with the rest of the men were fixated on finding gold and returning to England. By showing the men as solely seeking gold agrees with the mentality of ‘get rich quick.’ The colonists’ fixation of getting rich quick lines up with the actual colonists’ mindset. — James, Emily B. 2016/09/07 15:43

My roommates jumped at the chance to watch my “homework” with me last night. One of them referred to Pocahontas as a princess and I almost corrected her about the matrilineal and patrilocal societal functions of the Powhatan until I thought about it in the Disney sense. In the sense of the Disney movie, she is absolutely a princess but this doesn’t just show the historical inaccuracies of the film. This just furthers the idea that Eurocentric people have a difficulty understanding any other way and gives an idea, though exaggerated, into how the colonists saw Pocahontas’ relationship to her father. — Callie Morgan 2016/09/07 16:01

There were a few small details that the movie got right, like the women gathering crops and the men doing things such as hunting and fishing, and I did like that they showed games being played among the young children. I also agree that the Englishmen were portrayed well, in that they were young and very much out of their element, and just wanted to get gold and go home. I know that we discussed how calling Pocahontas a “princess” is not correct, but I must again point out that Disney is not the only one guilty of this. Granted, their reasoning is purely marketing, but because she was the daughter of the Chief, or King, John Smith and his fellow Englishmen would have referred to her that way too. As Emily already pointed out, Pocahontas was one of Disney’s first women of color to serve as a Princess, a title that is a big deal, not only for the company, but for young children too. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/09/07 17:19

What I thought the movie did right was allow the audience (mostly children) experience and understand the similarities both sides of the story shared. Names aside, there were individuals on both sides that thought it best not to fight, there were individuals on both sides that broke apart from the crowd, got told to be followed,and it even got to the point where both sides of the story at the climax of the movie were singing the same song with the same chorus “SAVAGES SAVAGES”. I dont think the importance of these similarities are that these people although seeming so different (at first) are alike. Rather I feel the importance the movie is trying to get across to its audience is that its okay to be different “to follow the wind” and “no matter what happens I will always be with you” (not really that last part, but Disney liked that line enough to put it in twice) Also: -“Heard some amazing stories about him” in the very beginning introducing John Smith, this correlate to him being to many places and the stories of the battles he has fought. - the opening song utilizing the “Virginia Company” not to its finest historical accuracy but interesting none the less. - You know Pocahontas she has her Mothers Spirit, she goes where the wind takes her“ the chief when asked where his daughter was. Does this point to the meaning of her name? #YOLO #Windrider — Baker, Jonathon A. 2016/09/07 18:36

The movie mentions early in the beginning that the English expected a journey much like the Spanish had. They were going to get rid of the savages and easily find gold. Along with this, the movie was also correct when it showed them not finding any gold and having a difficult time surviving when a shortage of food is mentioned. The movie also got the name Kocoum correct, even if it did stray on his fate, but props for Disney doing at least some research. — Houff, Nicholas T. 2016/09/07 21:23

I think the mentality that the colonists had about the Native Americans was accurately portrayed in the film. The colonists were ready to kill a Native American without any hesitation because they viewed themselves superior. John Smith tells Pocahontas that his people can help her people to build cities and roads because of the society they came from. It did not occur to them until much later that the Native Americans could actually help them more. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/09/07 20:54

I appreciated that there was at least an attempt to pay homage to matriarchial traditions in the majority of discourses between Pocahontas and Grandmother Willow. Pocahontas sought wisdom and strength from the women figures in her life, who were portrayed as the most spiritually powerful. The fight between Powhatan and John Smith and the infamous “rescue” was portrayed fairly accurately. I think they portrayed the clan dynamic accurately as well. I noticed a few specific details accurately illustrating the Natives' leisure traditions when there was a few seconds' worth of children playing lacrosse at the beginning, and a shot of Powhatan's cloak that was highly decorated on the back at the end. I find it interesting that Disney nailed such specific details but couldn't nail something as easy to research as the geography of the lands. I would say they nailed the Virginia Company's greed and foolishness quite well, though! Another thing that was illustrated well was the women dominating agricultural-based roles and the men dominating war-based rolls, though the women still gave off a European, “women do the domestic roles” type vibe (likely because it was written from that frame of mind). I am glad to have at least learned in class that that role actually gave women tremendous power, which I did not know the other ten times I've seen it! — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/07 20:59

A very important aspect to the Native Americans across the continent is their religious spirituality and their connection to nature. I think Disney did a good job of getting the connection to spirits during the song “Colors of the Wind” as Pocahontas tries to explain the importance of the land to him. Another part Disney captured well was the stereotyping, especially on the British end of conflict. They did this right before “Colors of the Wind” when John Smith blatantly calls Natives “savages” and Pocahontas points out that British distrust anyone who isn’t British like them. This comes up again in the “Savages” song as both sides call the other one savages. Each side goes on to sing lines about “barely even human,” “they’re only good when they’re dead,” “destroy their evil race until there’s not a trace left.” The writers had lines like “they’re not like you and mean which means they can’t be trusted” which were fairly accurate as well. It’s a violent but powerful song, filled with the stereotypes on each side; the Natives have “hellish red” skin and the British are referred to as “paleface demons.” Although Disney may have stretched the storyline far from the truth, several of the songs are accurate in terms of feelings and what was important to both sides. — Haynes, Kelly E. 2016/09/07 22:35

Despite its many inaccuracies, the film was fairly accurate about a few things and did have a historically accurate “spirit” in some ways. The women in Pocahontas’ village were probably responsible for farming while the men hunted, fished, and went to war. The film also showed that Pocahontas did have some relationship to Kocoum, even though the film used an arranged marriage dynamic and his death for dramatic effect. I feel the film probably captured the accurate attitudes of the majority of either side. The Virginia colonists thought they would have a similar experience to what the Spaniards had, finding gold and either enslaving or killing the Natives, whom they saw as backward savages; the Natives probably had their own inaccurate preconceptions about the English and the differences between their cultures. Considering how bigoted and inaccurate some older Disney films were (Peter Pan, for example), Pocahontas does have some accuracy to it. — Carey Megan A. 2016/09/08 00:01

One short line the writers' slipped into the closing scene of the movie is very accurate. Pocahontas gives John Smith willow bark to help with the pain; willow bark has the same anti-inflammatory as aspirin and would indeed have helped with the pain. From the reading I learned that Ratcliffe and Kocoum were actual people, though their portrayals, like those of John Smith, Pocahontas, and Powhatan are inaccurate. The film did get the us v. them mentality right. Both the English and Powhatan's people express the sentiment that “because they're not like us, they must be completely backward and evil.” This is very realistic (although the movie seems to imply they were equally at fault for the violence, which is not accurate). –Julia Peterson, 1:05 am

As I compare John Smith’s journal entry to the film, I find that both portray a man who is interested in learning about the New World. In the journal entry Smith is very detailed with listing the names of the various Native American tribes and the rivers, spelling them to the best of his ability (and to the pain of our having to read awkward vowel placements). In the film, Smith is portrayed as an earnest man who is receptive to learning about nature and cosmology. Milroy, Nancy 2016/09/08 06:57

Pocahontas, as a kids film managed to get a certain number of details right and a lot more wrong. At the start of the movie we see kids in the beginning and they were playing a game that looked like lacrosse. My question is whether or not that was a game that was played by American Indian kids or was that more a 90’s sport thrown in by the movie makers. I believe other facts they got right were the women and the “princess” doing the agriculture. I did feel the movie was pretty borderline when it came to the marriage part. I know from our class discussion that marriage was a group decision with the entire tribe. It sort of felt like Pocahontas had a choice, but it felt that her father might have just respected her judgment and let her choose her own destiny. The movie could have been more clear but I saw this as an area in which Disney got at least close. — Robert Pratt 2016/09/08 06:29

Pocahontas serves as one of the first princesses of color for Disney. Amidst the push for Disney to incorporate more diversity in the notoriously Anglo-Saxon princess lineup, Disney incorporates Pocahontas to serve as a first step for Disney. The film aims to paint the warring cultures, English and Native American, to come together in perfect harmony in the end because of Pocahontas’ epic selfless act of bravery. Pocahontas encourages John Smith to see the ‘savages’ as human beings, and although they hail from different places they are united by the same Earth. The image Disney paints is essentially an idealist view of both cultures dropping their stones and finding out they have more in common than they believe. The film Pocahontas depicts the 1990s as a time for the United States to redeem themselves in their dark history of cruelty and genocide towards Native Americans. The film skims over the horrendous killing on both sides, in order to recreate a history where both sides could coexist. The image 1990s Disney paints of the stereotypes associated with Native Americans better shows the attitude of America towards Native Americans than the story of Pocahontas. — James, Emily B. 2016/09/07 09:12

This is all true and i'm thinking it may have something to do with the fact that the writers of the film were probably all thinking from an American perspective, and likely mostly all Americans themselves! — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/07 21:09

The reality of the film undergoes what is colloquially known as ‘Disneyfication’. The realities of the story are heavily glossed over, or even outright ignored, while simultaneously being acknowledged to create this strangely piecemeal revisionist interpretation of the events of the story with sporadic bits of oddly salient truth and fact mixed in. The film acknowledges that the both sides, the Natives and the Settlers, had their flaws and equally misunderstood each other’s intentions. This, as far as can be gleaned from sparse accounts of the actual history, seems a likely outcome of the two worlds coming into contact with each other. However, in reality these tensions were likely not so easily dealt with as they were in the climax of the film where zero blood is shed. The film tries its best to acknowledge the potential reality of the situation that they end up completely glossing over the complexities of diplomacy between two wildly different cultures with massive language and cultural barriers. Not to mention, while Pocahontas is meant to be the main protagonist of the film, John Smith somehow still ends up being the person that saves the day and brings peace between both sides by sacrificing himself for the sake of Powhatan when Ratcliffe tries to shoot him. Even when the film is meant to be sensitive to the story of an allegedly important Native American, the hero still ends up being an oddly Aryan blonde haired, blue eyed young man. — Cooney, Corey R. 2016/09/07 13:27

The movie, despite coming out just twenty-some years ago, fails to take a more objective look at what the Native American culture was at the time. I'm not sure if this is because better interpretations didn't start coming up until after the movie botched it or if Disney's research failed to look at anything but John Smith's hero story. Nevertheless, the movie Pocahontas is very male-centric, from the focus on John Smith to Powhatan's apparently unquestionable power. We discussed in class that women in this culture had a lot to do with influencing power. Their approval in important decisions was vital, yet there are hardly any women in this movie outside of the village or fields. Her friend's name is hardly even used, despite being a recurring character. In terms of marriage, we discussed the idea of the collective contribution to deciding whether a marriage should take place, although in the movie Powhatan basically tells Pocahontas that she's going to marry Kokoum despite her opposition. No one else so much as mentions it (except Kokoum, who is trying his best). This masculine story follows a Western idealization of women staying out of the way of important events and men knowing what's best. Even in the end, as Corey mentioned, the man is the one who literally takes the bullet for the sake of peace. Never mind what Pocahontas just spent the last hour trying to do. — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/09/07 16:45

I would have liked if there had been more class time or a specific reading to discuss Native Americans' spiritual culture, since that was pretty common throughout the movie (most notably during the songs, where there would be leaves swirling and wind painting going on). It would be interesting to explore whether or not those elements were just added in to add to the “Disney magic”, or if the effects and visuals were reminiscent of the actual beliefs of the time. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/07 20:59

The movie indicates that it was only Chief Powhatan and Pocahontas (and a deceased wife) in their little family, but we mentioned in class that Pocahontas had dozens of half-siblings. Why not include any relatives besides her father? I suppose killing off her mother strengthened the spiritual concept in the movie, but couldn’t there have been an older sibling to add to the movie (or in place of Pocahontas’ best friend in the movie)? Also related to the familial ties, we had talked about how some Native tribes had very powerful women who were either directly or indirectly tribe leaders so why was there not a single woman besides Pocahontas and her best friend? Every other human character was male in the movie. What was the significance of that? Lastly, how much was Radcliffe based on the real Radcliffe? Was he really so difficult or did Disney just need a villain and a vain, money-hungry British man sounded perfect for the part? Did the real Radcliffe have a negative effect on the colony? — Haynes, Kelly E. 2016/09/07 22:35

The film could be seen to represent a time when thoughts about Native Americans were not as restrictive as they are now. Although the movie was released in 1995, which is not a long time ago, it could reflect how racial stereotypes were not seen as damaging as they are today. Some critics have expressed concern over racial stereotyping of Native Americans as weaker than the white man or their ability to connect with nature. Such as the animal friends of Pocahontas and the talking tree. It can be difficult to attempt to portray a certain ethnicity accurately without being accused of stereotyping, but there is a song in the film called “Savages,” which does not reflect well upon Disney. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/09/07 09:47

The film shows the ideal body image of the time period the film was made in. I noticed that all the Native American women and men looked similar in their appearances. Native American women were shown as having tall, skinny bodies with full lips and eyeliner around their eyes while Native American men were shown as physically strong and toned. Now, not all Native American looked this way, especially Pocahontas who was only 12 years old at the time, but these images shows what the “desired” body type was during the time period so the audience could relate and not be completely out of their comfort zone when watching the film. John Smith was ready to kill Pocahontas when he first met her but due to her incredible beauty does not shoot. This message implies that her beauty saved her and it shows that beauty was held at an important level in American society. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/09/07 15:55

This wasn't even something I considered, Leah, thanks for pointing that out and making me think of another element of the film that I overlooked! — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/07 21:08

I completely agree with what Neal posted above. The stereotypes of Native Americans portrayed in the film are harmful to the image of the people. Yet, it is interesting to think that one of the reasons for this film was for the group of Disney princesses to be more inclusive to POC. Their intentions were good and sometimes attempts at historical accuracy can seem stereotypical but not all of the choices made for this film worked in Disney’s favor. — Callie Morgan 2016/09/07 16:01

“Colors of the Wind” is definitely a product of its time. This was made during the “New Age,” when people were going back to old thoughts and old ways, especially the return to nature and the spirituality of nature. This is especially true of Native American culture and values. The lyric ♫You think you own whatever land you land on♫ says that the white man’s way is wrong, and that the Native American way holds virtue. — Gaddie, Jason W.S. 2016/09/07 7:10PM

I struggle to conclude how I feel about this movie. While I appreciate historical accuracy, I also recognize that no Disney movie is expected to be entirely truthful. They romanticize storylines to appeal to younger girls which can also be problematic but Pocahontas, as a Disney princess, has always been different for me. She was not a damsel in distress, but a woman who was headstrong and brave. She knew (the movie version) that she was needed back in her village and didn’t blindly follow a man that she kissed once like most Disney princesses do. In this right, Pocahontas is a symbol of the most recent wave of feminism where women can help to protect men but are also able to make their own decisions. She is adventurous and outdoorsy. Further, she teaches John Smith the ways of her world. I suppose the purpose of this class is to determine whether entertainment negates blatant historical inaccuracy, but there are times where I believe it is okay to produce a film strictly for entertainment. — Rainford, Lauren E. 2016/09/07 20:53

To identify whether or not this movie was a primary source of the time in which it was made, it required me to research what was going on with US Native American culture. Britannica.com's article titled “Native American Cultural Ferment in 1995” specified that during that time in the US and Canada, “several museums agreed to repatriate culturally sensitive objects to tribes”. For the country to be making such efforts to restore the history of Native Americans and respect them, it's important to consider whether or not this movie did just that. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/07 21:01

The way Native Americans are portrayed in Pocahontas fits into the trope of Native Americans (and more broadly people of color in general) as magical and more in touch with the forces of the earth and nature. Though seemingly positive, this stereotype still sets up a dichotomy where Native Americans are in touch with nature, wild, and uncivilized which makes the white Europeans represent civilization and technological development, which are much more valued in society in the 1600s, in 1995, and now in White western mainstream discourse. This supposedly positive portrayal also masks Native Americans actual beliefs. The movie could have been used as a vehicle to more accurately convey spiritual practices in Powhatan's tribe, but instead that is swept up in the idea of “listening to the wind” and talking trees. It makes sense this trope would come into play as there was a greater push for “political correctness” and diversity in the 1990s that spurred attempts at more positive representation of minorities. This trope of the magical ethnic person was very much a normal cultural idea in 1995, showing us where public thought was at the time of the film's production. –Julia Peterson, 12:52 am

The account that John Smith wrote and the character John Smith in the movie both share a main similarity that both depict him the primary acting agent in the events. The Smith’s accomplish feats far beyond what would have been usual and appear more exaggerated. In the film the introduction to John Smith revolves around his great exploits and bravery. While the reading is more subdued it still includes many instances where Smith avoids trouble without anyone else to help him after he shoots and kills some native American men. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/09/06 18:34

Even though the primary source we read wasn’t the third version of the story, you can tell that instead of looking at all sources Disney only viewed the last. Instead of going with what was actually (using that term very loosely since John Smith was not the most reliable) happening during his capture as stated in our readings, they went with the violent description of his capture. It is clear that, instead of looking at an actual historical event and person and treating it as such, they are looking at the fictional version and treating it as fact. This is not to say they don’t have their similarities. As Catherine said, they both live up John Smith’s exploits, either with him going “to hundreds of new worlds” as Disney claimed or him somehow dodging 30 arrows in his own words. They both try to tell a better story then the truth. — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/09/07 16:04

John Smith in the reading had a lot more to say about what was happening in terms of trade and interpersonal events. He explained who got sick, who attacked them, how the Native Americans treated them upon their various interactions, and what the colony was actually doing while he wasn't off trading. This first account, while perhaps not totally reliable, gave a much more in-depth description of what he experienced socially and personally. He had a lot of opinions about the settlers he worked with and took up the role of providing food for people he didn't seem to think worked very hard. He mentioned the changes in power and the disorder within the colony, not just what he was personally running into in his adventures. His explanations of what the Native Americans were doing is pretty vague at the beginning and appears spontaneous, but of course if whatever happened was his fault, he probably wouldn't write to his superiors about it. The central focus on John Smith and the lack of interaction between the Native Americans and English settlers are the biggest difference between the film and the reading. — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/09/07 16:45

So I admit that I have the blu-ray version of Pocahontas, just because while it is inaccurate and nowhere near one of Disney’s best films, it’s also not anywhere close to the worst films the company has put out, and I appreciate the good things the movie does have to offer, like the color and backgrounds, and scores and music from Alan Menken, who is one of my favorite composers. I therefore have special features that I can look at, to include commentary by the directors Eric Goldberg, Mike Gabriel, and the producer, James Pentecost. They spoke multiple times of how they knew they were dealing with historical people and how they strove for historical accuracy, and the irony of still having a lot of Disney tropes put into the movie (love at first sight, bursting into song, etc.) was not lost on me.

However, after reading John Smith’s journal entry dated 1608 and learning what he wrote in 1624 years after Pocahontas had died, I venture the opinion that it’s obviously not just Disney who is guilty of the historical inaccuracies, but their version isn’t even the most insulting. Smith does say that he was shot, but for the most part, (what I could gather anyway) he did say he was treated very well, and barely mentioned Pocahontas then. We discussed that his memoirs followed an attack between the settlers and the Native Americans, but for him to completely revamp what happened later on was still something that I just can’t wrap my head around. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/09/07 16:46

I feel with all sources historians need to take a chill pill and understand this is just another dimension to another story, interpreted for another audience, and made in another period in time. We (historians) dont go around reading one primary source and take it as fact. One does not read John Smiths journal and claim to know the history, rather a piece of history that can be used to gain a better understanding of the bigger picture. Comparing the reading to the movie, The movie follows that of the John Smith journals and stories to an extent a kids movie can. It emphasized the story through the lense of a specific side (in this case sides) of the story. With that said it's a historical horror, and a cinematic classic none the less. — Baker, Jonathon A. 2016/09/07 19:01

Jon, I agree with your apt analysis. While applying what you said about the movie, I do not think we can make an accurate conclusion of what people thought of Native Americans in 1995 based solely off of Pocahontas. Instead of looking at Pocahontas as THE primary source, we should simply take it into consideration when looking at the treatment of Native Americans in the mid 1990’s as a whole. — Trout, Christian C. 2016/09/07 22:48

I think the reading was slightly more credible than the movie, but we should keep in mind (as we mentioned in class) that John Smith did not write well, thought quite highly of himself and pretty much only wrote of himself in those tones, and frequently used a friend or ghostwriter to write his writings for him. So this makes the two potentially relate more in inaccuracies than accuracies. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/07 21:03

Smith's journal clearly paints a different picture than the film. At first glance, we can see Disney drew on Smith's later account (after Pocahontas' death) of events. Smith's journal actually describes the Native Americans he came across with more nuance I expected. Smith, being a member of the Virginia Company, does emphasize trade, but what interested me was how much exchange went on between himself and the tribes he came across early on. While there were ambushes and skirmishes (which, like in the film, caused them to quickly establish a fort), a good amount of early contact between Smith and the Native Americans he met in this period seemed amicable. Smith's journal also does not mention Pocahontas by name, but of course includes that she was around ten years old when they first met, which would definitely not make for the best Disney film. — Hawkins Daniel C. 2016/09/08 04:56

So what if the movie is so historically inaccurate that it hurts, it doesn’t hurt anyone right? In a sense that is right, it doesn’t really hurt anyone at the moment, but in a way it can hurt in the long run, especially to the viewers. The typical audience for this movie would probably be young children, let’s say 5 or 6. When they watch this movie, they probably aren’t thinking, Oh this movie is historically inaccurate this movie sucks. What they are probably thinking is how do they get a raccoon domesticated enough to keep it as a pet. (Okay maybe this is just me) However, in the long run when that 5 or 6 year old becomes older and they learn about the real history, they might start to think oh well if they can reshape history to make it work then maybe so can I. Let’s honestly hope they don’t do that, let’s hope that this so what if the movie is inaccurate will encourage them to go above and beyond to do additional research on the topic to see what history actually says about this event. However, we got to give it to Disney though for shaping this historical inaccuracy into a tale of women heroism and that women can be strong individuals, especially when it comes to saving their “love”. Yes women power indeed… — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/09/06 21:43

I agree with Mary-Margaret about this movie being so inaccurate that it will hopefully encourage watchers to go out and do their own research into the subject. That is probably the best way for children or any viewer to learn about Pocahontas anyway. Even John Smith was not completely accurate with his telling of events, so I feel that you cannot completely blame Disney for getting some things wrong. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/09/07 09:53

I think in a way Disney created a fictional character. The Pocahontas in this disney film is so far from the truth that she has become a just another princess, no child is really aware of her as an actual person and what she went through. Disney is known for having fictional characters and stories, it comes with their territory. I think the historical accuracy is irrelevant when talking about Disney. CLICK IF YOU DARE https://www.buzzfeed.com/eugeneyang/if-disney-princesses-were-historically-accurate?utm_term=.sd74v5B3E#.arGVMqpmN — Sciadini, Natalie 2016/09/07 03:27

I think it is important to study both John Smith’s original telling of the story and the version Disney put out because I believe they both reflect the cultures and their times. Smith’s telling reflected what people thought would happen, the Native Americans could be violent but they were willing to help and saw the English as great as shown when they sent over Pocahontas to retrieve the captured Natives. The Disney version shows how people still believe the story Smith eventually told, but instead of believing they were violent, there was a better understanding of the people and who they were. These two versions show us how people of those times viewed Native Americans and how those views changed from 1608 to 1995. — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/09/07 16:04

I think it is important to look at this film from the perspective of Disney. Objectively, what would be more entertaining: a twelve year old Pocahontas who has little or no interaction with a mid-thirties John Smith, or a somewhat strained love story where Pocahontas saves John Smith from a certain death? And, after she saves him, both promote peaceful interaction between two different peoples who will, in real life, continue to clash for hundreds of years? Disney did what it had to do in order to make a profit, it’s as simple as that. Disney does not exist to provide historical accuracy: it exists to entertain audiences and make money. — Trout, Christian C. 2016/09/07 20:30

Christian, what you wrote in this comment is important to think about and gave me a good sense of the filmmakers' perspectives when making the film. I will try to consider this throughout the class as well! — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/07 21:05

During 1995, many efforts were being taking to honor, restore, and in a sense bring back Native American culture (see my comment for #5). I think this movie takes a step backward in doing that, and filmmakers have a responsibility to consider the context and current events of the time period they're in to make a more accurate movie. However, this was a Disney movie, so I'm not entirely sure it was accuracy they were going for, but still, entertainment should be defined beyond its face value. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/07 21:05

This portrayal matters because the genocide of Native Americans has been historically buried and erased for the sake of perpetuating myths of European superiority, discovery, manifest destiny, and equal opportunity. If the US had faced this legacy and/or there were many media portrayals of Native Americans, this movie would not be as much of a problem. But since it is one of the few mainstream movies with Native American representation, the burden falls more heavily upon it to be an accurate representation— of Native American culture, at least, if not the history. The movie fails on both counts. –Julia Peterson, 1:03 am

There will always be an abundance of comparisons to be made regarding a film’s adaptation of historic events or their primary sources. This is especially true when extracting the most interesting pieces of history, diluting grizzly and violent aspects of it, turning it into a cartoon, and then mold it’s premise so it will cater to children. For this manipulation of history, one can easily make claims of its falsities and voice their anger. However, like most Disney animations, Pocahontas lavished an actual period in time with the standard Disneyesque embellishments, typically using elements of magic and talking animals/inanimate objects. Despite their lack of speech and apposable thumbs (for the most part), the animals in Pocahontas were overly friendly and the pug dog (Percy) could be seen wearing traditional English garments until he went native and traded them in for the stereotypical feathered headgear of Native Americans. The point here, is that most persons familiar with this generation of Disney films will most likely take them for what they are, an intended source of entertainment for children rather than a source of education. If anything, an argument could be made that these embellished (whitewashed) portrayals based on fact, might spark a child’s interest on the content in question, thus promoting further research and deeper insight of said events. — Blount, David M 2016/09/08 04:27

I think it is important to ask if Disney has set out to actually tell a historical story with Pocahontas. Disney usually adapts fairy tales and not actual historical events, and in most cases even those get very muddled and censored along the way before becoming films meant for young audiences. I think it is worth noting that Disney's accuracy and message was, in some ways, even constrained not just by themselves, but by audiences at the time the film came out. The song “Savages” was actually censored before the film came out and changed to be a little more palatable for younger audiences, so there's some evidence Disney did originally intend on telling a slightly more objective story but were limited by what was thought to be appropriate for children. But, we should still ask: is Disney obligated to tell a historically accurate version? Pocahontas was a real person, John Smith was a real person, etc., and we are dealing with historical events that had real impacts on Anglo-Indian relations that can still be felt today, but in comparison with Disney's older films, Pocahontas does to a fair amount to correct past stereotypes and is pretty even-handed. They show the colonists as greedy, ethnocentric, violent, and delusional, and neither side is willing to actually understand the other until circumstances become dire. Whether that warrants mangling actual history, I do not know, but Disney formed a narrative around the events to convey a message, and did so fairly successfully. — Hawkins Daniel C. 2016/09/08 05:16