When I first watched “Pocahontas (1995)” as a 6-year-old, I was completely unaware that Pocahontas was a historical figure. To me, she was just another “Disney princess”. Years later, having studied US history, I now know that Pocahontas was worth much more than a mere Disney protagonist.

Watching the film again 10 years later, I was surprised at how much my perspective on it had changed. I started noticing all the small details about the animated movie and I compared it to the recorded history of Pocahontas’ life. For one, I noticed that the film makers changed John Smith’s appearance. I don’t just mean that I question how attractive John Smith actually was, compared to the super good looking version in the film. What I want to point out is how in portraits of John Smith (I refer to those which were painted in his day, of course), he has brown eyes and brown hair. The film version of him has piercing blue eyes and blond hair. I don’t doubt this was an attempt to romanticise the character, because, after all, this was a film that needed to be sold to a young audience. But the difference in physique is nothing compared to the altercation the film makers made on both John Smith’s age and Pocahontas’. John Smith was about 28 years old while Pocahontas was about 10 years old when the two met. A love-line depicted in the films seem ridiculous, knowing this fact.

However, there were other small details that this movie hit precisely. First is the relationship between Pocahontas and her father, Chief Powhatan. According to the colonist Captain Ralph Hamor, Pocahontas was a favorite of her father’s. In the movie, the two certainly have a close relationship. And Disney’s interpretation included Kocoum, who is speculated to have been Pocahontas’ possible fiancé. I don’t really know how to feel about the movie including events that may or may not have happened. In addition to Kocoum, the film included stories from John Smith’s account. He wrote, “At the minute of my execution, she [Pocahontas] hazarded the beating out of her own brains to save mine; and not only that, but so prevailed with her father, that I was safely conducted to Jamestown.” In the film, when Chief Powhatan was about to kill Smith, Pocahontas covered Smith’s head with her body. Scholars these days agree, generally, that this event never took place.

To add, I was impressed that there were references to King James and the explanation behind the Virginian colony called Jamestown. Other backgrounds seemed to be in place, as well. John Smith left in December 1606 and arrived in the new land in April 1607. The movie John Smith hints at the durance of his travels by saying “[you get] tired of biscuits after eating them for four months”. Besides that, I found it interesting how a dog was brought over from England to Jamestown. Dogs aren’t indigenous to America, and I thought it subtly portrayed the Columbian exchange well. And usually, the colonists who came to Virginia on the first ships were indeed men. The movie did not show any sign of British women, which I thought kept true to history. In addition, the movie makes the motives of British colonists clear: they had come to look for gold and silver. The songs in the Disney adaptation reveal their desire for wealth as well as the Native’s response. Mother Spirit and voodoo-like procedures are dealt in the films- an adherence to tribal culture.

In an attempt to get details correct, Disney hired Shirley “Little Dove” Custalow McGowan as its chief Native American consultant (wiki). But Disney seemed to have disregarded her inputs largely as later on “[she] wish[ed her] name wasn’t on it” (wiki).

Further inaccuracies enraged Chief Roy Crazy Horse. While I thought Disney was fair to show the hostility of the colonists towards Indians through the song “Savages, Savages”. that seemed like an understatement for Chief Roy Crazy Horse. The chief said Disney should not have sugar-coated anything and showed the extent of the British’ cruel treatment. But I want to defend Disney for this particular “inaccuracy” because this film was also intended for LITTLE KIDS. As a child, even the song “Savages” freaked me out.

I mean the lyrics of that song is just brutal and barbaric!

[What can you expect

From filthy little heathens?

Their whole disgusting race is like a curse

Their skin's a hellish red

They're only good when dead

They're vermin, as I said

And worse.

They're savages! Savages!

Barely even human. Savages! Savages!

Drive them from our shore!

They're not like you and me

Which means they must be evil.

We must sound the drums of war!]

credit to: Disney

In addition to being exposed to that song, if I had seen Indians being physically raped and mistreated, I’d have quit Disney, once and for all. These further gruesome details, we can learn in school. The song gave me a pretty good idea how badly the Indians were treated, anyways.

Overall, I believe that this movie was certainly more towards New Left. The film preaches the paradox that Indians were all “noble savages”, people who weren’t civilised but had a moral sense. I think the movie really antagonised the British and hero+victimized the Indians. This proves my theory that we live in a world of “historical amnesia”.

Despite my aforementioned points about historical inaccuracies, I still adore the film, personally. It was my childhood and I can’t suddenly hate it. But I do recognise how much media affected my view of Pocahontas until I actually studied and researched her. Historical films give me a headache because they have to be profitable yet historically accurate, or else they are harshly criticized. I still have mixed feelings on to what extent historical films should remain true, and how much they should be allowed to incorporate their own interpretations and fictional plots.

And so from a history student’s perspective, I am not sure whether it was wise for Disney to influence children with their interpretations and plots because children cannot really come to their own conclusion on what they think. I was to a victim of this too, without even knowing it. It was only recent that I realised Pocahontas had actually married John Rolfe. I always thought Pocahontas lived happily ever after with John Smith.

All I can conclude is: well, at least they tried. It was marketable and it did portray some correct backgrounds. At the least, I had heard about Pocahontas from an early age. Good try, Disney.