"Pocahontas: The Disney Imaginary"

In her article about the inaccuracies and oversights involved in Disney's production of Pocahontas, Parekh expresses an idea that is shared amongst many Disney critics and scholars. It seems to be widely believed that one of the film's biggest faults is that it imposes American values and ideas on an outside culture in order to change a historical or cultural viewpoint. Parekh claims that Pocahontas is not a heroine because "she represents the power and wisdom of a Powhatan woman," but because her love for John Smith joins two hateful and worn torn people together. Parekh addresses that this, a depiction of a positive image in order to paint a culture to fit the needs of the American people, is a tactic employed to make audiences “forget” the darker sides of American history.

While it is true that Disney distorts historical information in order to make the story of Pocahontas fit the qualifications for a classic Disney production, it is not a valid argument that imposing American ideals as positive is an incorrect thing to do. Because, all cultures do that in one form or another. If you took a movie, a book, or a folk story across the world and had different cultures retell it, they would tailor it to their own personal values and tradition. For example, in the Thai version of Cinderella, Kao and the Golden Fish, Kao’s mother is reborn as a goldfish, an eggplant, and a pair of trees. In this way, the Thai people have altered the traditional European story to incorporate their values of reincarnation. Love and marriage based on free will is an important concept in American culture, and so it is highlighted in an American animated film. Pocahontas does not refuse to marry Kocum in the film because he is less attractive than the blonde haired and blue eyed sailor, but because his serious nature is at odds with the adventurous and impulsive spirit that she shares with John Smith.  On another note the Powhatan Chief is not depicted as an irrational and suspicious leader who is rejecting the progressive ways of the white colonist as Parekh states, but Disney makes it clear he is not aggressive until one of his men was literally shot in the leg.

Disney certainly undermines the historical significance and seriousness of the actual story of Pocahontas, but Pocahontas is a far cry from the usually racist and insensitive portrayals of minorities and foreign cultures such as is found in Aladdin. Should Disney be praised simply because it produced a film that isn’t racist, of course not. But all the factors of the actual story of Pocahontas that Parekh claims Disney has tossed, her kidnapping, her renaming, her marriage, and her death are small parts of a greater picture. If we’re going to press Disney to go historically accurate and educational, we’re going to have to start with the Virginia Company charter, the actual John Ratcliffe, and maybe continue all the way on to Disney’s King Phillips War and Disney’s Trail of Tears. Disney is not meant to teach children history, but it gets the conversation going, and while it should be as culturally sensitive and considerate as possible, we can’t have it all in 130 minutes or less.