#amerindians

"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." (Walt Disney Animation Studios)

New World Ventures

The film opens on the crew of the Susan Constant setting sail for North America, to the tune of a Baroque-themed British chorus which briefly explains the role of the Virginia Company (Bossert, 2015). It's a very catchy tune. We're introduced to both Captain John Smith who, over the course of several minutes, is shown as a dashing and brave man seeking adventure, and Governor John Ratcliffe who extrudes greed and false-pomp.

Europe had a continuous colonial presence in the Western Hemisphere for over 100 years by the time the film takes place. The real breadwinner was Spain, which had settled in Central and South America, devastated the lives of the Amerindian nations, and built up substantial profits in the form of precious metals, land claims, and religious conversions. England, by contrast, was a poor player. The Hundred Years War brought the country to the infancy of a nation-state but also gifted it substantial debts; it couldn't afford to colonize the New World even if it wanted to.

And it certainly wanted to. A key player was Richard Hakluyt, an influential writer who urged England to colonize the Americas. He argued that God had blessed Spain for its conquest with immense riches because they converted so many natives; therefore, if England wanted to be rich and powerful, they needed to travel to America and proselytize on a similarly massive-scale (Mann, 2011 B; Elliott, 2006). As well, he recognized that Spain's failed attempt to take Florida left the eastern seaboard open for the taking, so England must establish a strong colonial & military presence there to beat the might of the Spaniards (Hämäläinen, 2022). Reluctantly but hopefully, the sovereigns took the risk and passed the role of colonization over to various joint-stock companies: "groups of wealthy people who pooled their resources to fund a commercial enterprise, being repaid by shares of the proceeds" (Mann, 2011 B). These proto-corporations allowed for the construction of ships full of supplies, and encouraged any Englishmen to invest their time to open-ocean voyages for the promise of riches and land in return. After several failed attempts (including the infamous Roanoke colony), the Virginia Company was chartered in 1606, having the support of around 1700 stockholders, and amassing a crew of 144 men which set sail that December (Kurin, 2013).

I should mention this now, but it would be pointless to point-out every inaccuracy in Pocahontas. The voyage started in 1606 not 1607 as stated in the opening musical number. No, John Smith wasn't a captain at the time: that honor goes to Christopher Newport. There were actually three ships which sailed to Virginia, not just the Susan Constant as seen in the film. And so on and so forth. That's not the point of this article. My ultimate goal is to supplement the film's story with the background historical narrative. Any discussion of inaccuracies plays a role in discussing the myth-making surrounding the legend of Pocahontas & John Smith, not in nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

Densely Inhabited Land

"These pale visitors are strange to us. Take some men to the river to observe them. Let us hope they do not intend to stay." (Walt Disney Animation Studios)

Following the voyage of the Susan Constant, we're then treated to a parallel musical number "Steady as the Beating Drum", which showcases the life of the Powhatan people and some of their philosophies. It is here where we meet Chief Powhatan and, soon, Pocahontas herself. There is an authenticity to the music here that is admirable: Jim “Great Elk” Waters and his ensemble were brought into the recording studio to provide Northern Algonquin chants and songs for the number, which was supplemented by lyricist Stephen Schwartz's research into eastern Native American poetry (Bossert, 2015).

The setting for the remainder of the film is Tsenacomoco - "densely inhabited land" - an Indigenous empire which covered a vast area of modern-day southeast Virginia from the Appalachians to the Chesapeake Bay. Powhatan is the "throne name" for the paramount ruler Wahunsenacawh, who exercised his power over thirty tribes and a total of around 24,000 people. As in other Pre-Columbian empires, Chief Powhatan gained so much through subjugation of neighboring villages, and this often required an excess of power rather than violent slaughter. Conquered tribes swore allegiance to Powhatan, their leaders becoming symbolically-adopted as members of his family while retaining their leadership positions, and they had to provide up to 80% of their food and goods to him. By all accounts, he was quioccosuk "a god on Earth" and carried immense spiritual power over his fellows. (Hämäläinen, 2022; Hoxie, 1996).

While Pocahontas was his daughter, Wahunsenacawh also enjoyed the privilege of being married to several women at any one time and having many many children; not only did his bloodline run deep across Tsenacomoco but his political power was strengthened (as his wives were chosen from across the conquered districts). By the time he was 60 years old in 1607, he had been married to over a hundred women. In Powhatan society, succession was matrilineal, so none of his children were destined to rule after him. Instead - had history played out differently - he would be succeeded by his brothers, then his sisters, and then his sister's daughters (Hoxie, 1996).

Thinking about this, the filmmakers would have been presented with a rather... awkward situation in portraying the character of Chief Powhatan had the film gone differently. I cannot reasonably expect a mainstream American animated family film to have a major character with such a vast ever-changing polyamorous marriage, much less being an empire-builder that subjugates his fellow nations and makes them his adopted family. Perhaps they could have, but that seems like more of a risk that would upset audiences with children. Thus, in the finished film, Chief Powhatan has been reduced to a simple leader who speaks of his daughter and her deceased mother, represented by the leaves in the wind (Audio Commentary, 2005).

The portrayal of the lands and vibes surrounding Tsenacomoco in the film have left me very wanting. This is a symptom of the myth-making which overreached the production of Pocahontas.

In the history of anthropology, there was a concept called "the noble savage" which was popularized by writers like Jean-Jacque Rousseau in the 1700s, which argued that pre-contact peoples (or anyone which did not live in what Europeans considered 'civilization') lived in a state of nature, at peace with themselves, their neighbors, and their environment. I'm reminded of April Midthunder's character in FX's Reservation Dogs, who portrays a New Age Indigenous activist that exposes much of these same beliefs. Despite centuries of pushback, this concept has never truly left the world. To the film's credit, the production crew did try to correct these misconceptions in important ways, for example, in introducing Chief Powhatan's army returning from a battle with the Massawomeck, Iroquoian-speakers from the northwest of the empire.

But in many ways Pocahontas highlights "noble savage" concepts very bluntly, and we see this in the portrayal of Tsenacomoco as a tight-nit community surrounding by wilderness. While it is true that Wahunsenacawh's home village was located by a river (riverways formed essential highways), much of the surrounding lands would have been cleared for maize agriculture with just a scattering of large trees between them (Mann, 2011 B). For all the talk in "Colors of the Wind" about not cutting down trees, we must be reminded that the vast sweep of this region of eastern North America had been either substantially cleared of woodland through Indigenous slash-and-burn practices or cultivated through agroforestry (Mann, 2011 A). It is true that North American Amerindians sustained ecologically diverse landscapes through these practices, but it is also true that they were not passive actors in the landscape or children of nature.

As well, the highly spiritual aspects of the film - while not necessarily inaccurate - owe a lot more to modern interpretations and stereotypes than the evidence we have. Irene Bedard, the speaking-voice for Pocahontas, says this in the 1995 Making-of Featurette: "The Powhatans were deeply spiritual. Their culture was based on strong appreciation and respect for nature and their environment". That's a bit of a stretch; as we've just seen Wahunsenacawh was the architect of a large empire whose culture seemed to be based more on his expansionist whims than any ecological principles, even if those may have been on his mind. The truth is, we know very little about the spirituality of the historic Powhatans: we have aspects of deities, culture-heroes, a concept of the four-winds or four-corners, and descriptions of the priesthood recording in the Jamestown writings, but these were never elaborated upon (Birket-Smith, 1960). Besides, for several decades now the stereotype of the "ecological Indian" has done more than its fair share of work to infuse a film like this, especially in the rush of pop-culture environmentalism in the 1990s. If I could guess, much of the spiritualism depicted in the film likely stems from the modern Pamunkey Tribe, whom the Disney artists consulted with (Daily Press, 1993). Today they and other survivors of Tsenacomoco practice traditional beliefs infused with Christian principles, a legacy from "itinerant Baptist preachers who converted most of the Powhatans in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries" (Hoxie, 1996).

The general layout of the homes, community areas, and material objects are, nonetheless, spot-on, something which the film's directors were happy that no-one seemed to critique (Audio Commentary, 2005). Russell Means, speaking-voice actor for Chief Powhatan, provided additional consultation to get those details right (The Making of Pocahontas, 1995).

Little Hellion

"Don't you think we're getting a little old for these games?" (Walt Disney Animation Studios)

Now onto Pocahontas herself. In the film, we're treated to a vibrant, fun-loving, and empathetic young woman in her 20s, who is unsure about her path in life, torn between her own desires and her duty to her people. In typical Disney fashion, she has animal friends but also - in a rare case - a human friend Nakoma whom she can talk to (this is an aspect of the film I really enjoy; for what little screentime they have their chemistry is great). She also has Grandmother Willow, an elder which provides wisdom and guidance (nevermind that weeping willow trees are native to China and wouldn't be introduced into North America until a hundred years later. Details details lol).

A lot of ink has been spilled on the character of Pocahontas and her relation to her historic counterpart. Most everyone knows now that her real name was Matoaka, Pocahontas being an effectionate nickname meaning "little hellion" or "little mischief" (Mann, 2011 A). As well, most everyone knows now that she was somewhere between 10 and 12 years old when she met John Smith and the Jamestown settlers. Of her personality beyond her antics, Smith wrote nothing but high praise, treating her as someone without-equal among her people, quick-witted, wise, and with a warm heart (Hoxie, 1996). Beyond this, the filmmakers were not left with much and filled in much of the blanks themselves.

"I always saw Pocahontas as a child of nature. Pocahontas is one with nature as are the animals, streams, trees, leaves. It was impossible for me not to think of her as part of that world," said story artist Joe Grant (Rebello, 1995). Interactions and consultations with two Pamunkey women of the McGowan family ("one of several generations of Mattaponi chiefs"), Shirley “Little Dove” and Debbie "White Dove", heavily influenced much of the personality for Pocahontas (Daily Press, 1993; Rebello, 1995). And, as I'll elaborate on later, the romantic story the filmmakers wanted to portray painted much of how the titular character behaved in the movie.

Pocahontas' character design has also been a source of much contention. Given that the filmmakers aged her up to make her love-story with John Smith more palatable, there seemed to have been a concerted effort to make Pocahontas as beautiful as possible. I do think she is absolutely gorgeous, but I cannot help but shake a slight feeling of ick when I think about, say, Jeffrey Katzenberg's directions for supervising animator Glen Keane to make Pocahontas "the finest creature the human race has to offer" (Edgerton & Jackson, 1996). Or how Keane scoured his copy of "Feminine Beauty" and referenced supermodels to master his visions: "We’re doing a mature love story here, and we’ve got to draw her as such. She has to be sexy" (Rebello, 1995; Edgerton & Jackson, 1996). That's not to say that designing a beautiful woman is necessarily sexist, but there is a well-known discourse about the sexualization and exoticization of Indigenous women that necessarily has to factor into things like this.

What is always interesting to note is that some historical accuracy in the clothing of the Powhatans had to be sacrificed in the name of censorship, in contrast to the costume of the English which was rigorously detailed. According to Chief Mark Custalow, a consultant for the film, "they had to put clothes on the characters for the movie. Let's just say that tops weren't a big fashion statement then" (Rickey, 1995). Pocahontas' outfit is thus anachronistic, even down to the way her hair is shaped: instead of her long, free-flowing hair, she would likely have had the sides of her head shaven.

The First Permanent English Settlement in North America

"All the riches here, from this minute, this land and what's in it, is mine!" (Walt Disney Animation Studios)

Pocahontas sees "white clouds" on the horizon: the Susan Constant has arrived in Chesapeake Bay. The settlers make landfall and Governor Ratcliffe proclaims the land in the names of King James I. While John Smith explores the rugged, vast terrain, Ratcliffe sets the colonists to work on digging up the gold they'd been promised was there. As the days continue on, Ratcliffe frets about the lack of riches, let alone decent food, as the fort is quickly built after a Powhatan ambush. He quickly rationalizes that the gold is being hidden from them by the Natives.

Let's talk about Ratcliffe. He's our film's main antagonist... well, actually that's not really true. According to co-director Eric Goldberg, "prejudice was the villain, for which Ratcliffe fell prey to" (Audio Commentary, 2005). "Ratcliffe carries the racism and greed in the movie. Where the other settlers are kind of proto-American, Ratcliffe is a real colonialist who hasn’t come to Virginia to settle but to exploit." says Duncan Marjoribanks, supervising animator (Rebello, 1995). In Pocahontas, Ratcliffe is presented as an archetype symbolizing all the violence, greed, and inhumanity that European colonization brought to the Americas. As such, he's presented as an almost cartoonishly-evil villain lacking in much self-reflection or real depth. This is in high contrast to the rest of the settlers, who for all intents and purposes are supposed to be viewed as sympathetic men lured to participating in land-possession and genocide on behalf of Ratcliffe; once Ratcliffe is removed, suddenly all the negative aspects of colonialism are too.

This is obviously remarkably naive on the part of the filmmakers, who nonetheless have done a well-lauded job in highlighting the truth about colonization. It's a remarkable contradiction. Compared to much of the media and imagery I viewed as a child about this period of American history, Pocahontas bluntly opens its story by explaining that the English came to America for profit and exploitation, not being afraid to kill Native Americans to achieve that goal. The language of the settlers is full of blatant racism and apathy towards the Indigenous peoples, the character Thomas going as far to cheerfully say "I'm going to get a pile of gold, build me a big house, and if any Indian tries to stop me, I'll blast him."

There's also an interesting underlying commentary on the class-distinctions occurring on behalf of the Virginia Company. In the film Governor Ratcliffe inspires his men to spend days digging for gold and building the settlement, but never performs any labor himself, which doesn't go unnoticed by the men. In the aforementioned writings of Richard Hakluyt, he treated the colonization of the Americas as "a leisurely occupation for the elite, if they could persuade poor English people and the Native Americans to do the heavy lifting" (Hämäläinen, 2022). The Virginia Company even went as far as to tell Captain Newport to hide any instances of death from the other colonists to "prevent ‘the Country people’ from perceiving ‘they are but common men' " (Elliott, 2006).

In April 1607, when the English arrived in the Chesapeake region, they initially found plentiful food in the land and sea, but there was pressure to settle further inland. The directors of the Virginia Company has urged the settlers to pick a spot far enough away from the coast to avoid detection by the Spanish, and take great care no to offend the people of Tsenacomoco for fear that they would ally with Spain against them. As a result, they made landfall on a small, swampy, uninhabited island, rife with mosquitoes and undrinkable water... and during a multiyear drought no less (Mann, 2011 B). To add insult to injury, the Virginia Company did not allow individual colonists to make their own land claims, nor did they pay salaries in proportion to the mount of work they actually did, so the lower-class who was already "undermanned and ill prepared" to establish a colony gradually lost the drive to build their new life (Kurin, 2013).

Where does John Smith fit in all this? According to supervising animator John Pomeroy, Smith's "plotline in the movie is that he’s living an unexamined life, is afraid to see the hole in himself. So, to escape, he seeks one adventure after another" (Rebello, 1995). It seems true that John Smith experienced many adventures prior to his accompaniment on the Jamestown expedition, though historians generally take a critical-lense to his own writings like True Travels as Smith was prone to boasting and exaggeration. In contrast to the film, John Smith's larger-than-life attitude earned him more scorn than praise from his fellows: he was under arrest for mutiny for the much of the trip to Virginia and, as a member of the lower-class, frequently clashed with the higher English gentlemen (Mann, 2011 B).

Clash of Cultures

"They're not like you and me, which means they must be evil. We must sound the drums of war!" (Walt Disney Animation Studios)

In the film, the Powhatans take a cautious approach to the English. Chief Powhatan is unfamiliar with their appearence, mores, and weapons, and after a brief skirmish wants absolutely nothing to do with them except see to their elimination from the coast. The English, in similar manner, are inherently frightened of the "savages", and Governor Ratcliffe outlaws all contact with the Indigenous that does not involve their deaths.

This is yet another aspect of Pocahontas which deviates so heavily from the actual history as to be somewhat distracting, but it has to be understood that all these changes were for a very clear purpose. The filmmakers desired to create a movie which addressed prejudice and hatred "with its clash of two worlds and its especially timely theme of ‘If we don’t learn to live with one another, we will all destroy ourselves'," according to then President of Disney Feature Animation Peter Schneider who goes on to say, "it is an important message to a generation of people to stop fighting, stop killing each other because of the color of your skin, who you are, because you feel differently about religion" (Rebello, 1995). Co-director Eric Goldberg even went as far as to reveal that a big motivating factor for his work on the film was his reaction to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, in words that, to me, seemed to imply he viewed those civil disturbances as nothing more than senseless violence (Audio Commentary, 2005). There was a genuine belief that such messages were to make up the heart of the film, a not undesirable goal I will admit, it just seems that the setting and characters were an odd choice to do so.

As stated before, the Virginia colonists were under strict orders to behave without malice towards the Powhatans. After making landfall and establishing Jamestown, Captain Newport took several men and boat down the newly-named James River until they arrived at Wahunsenacawh's home village, deep within the Tsenacomoco empire. There, an inscripted cross was placed by a waterfall and the land claimed for England under King James. Upon their first meeting with Wahunsenacawh, gifts were exchanged and an conflicted-understanding was reached between the two leaders: Newport saw the Powhatans as valuable allies to protect against the Spanish and an aid to provisioning the colony, while Wahunsenacawh saw the English as valuable allies to protect against neighboring Indigenous enemies. The English muskets, in particular, seemed promising weapons and many were acquired. Tensions remained high, nonetheless. While Newport continued his investigations of the James River, a scouting party of Powhatans raided Jamestown and, in response, the English ships sailed to nearby villages and shot at them with cannons (Elliott, 2006).

For the English colonists, such acts of increased violence would have confirmed the barbarian-nature of the people they came to ultimately subjugate physically and spiritually. For the people of Tsenacomoco, the use of violence was resistance to foreign powers in the name of self-preservation and for the empire. England entered their lands and claimed them for itself, under a philosophy of profit, exploitation, and assimilation. If one takes the film's point-of-view, none of this really matters: it's just senseless intolerance and violence "on both sides". This mentality is encapsulated well in the song "Savages" at the penultimate scene of the film, "a very powerful song that attempts to expose the ugliness and stupidity that results when people give into racism and intolerance" (Bossert, 2015). Again, admirable on paper, but I don't think it takes a genius to explain why "both-sidesing" the European colonization of the Americas is a stupid idea.

The Climax of the Legend

"Look around you. This is where the path of hatred has brought us. This is the path I choose, Father. What will yours be?" (Walt Disney Animation Studios)

It's at this point that the story of the film reaches a significant climax. In all this time, Pocahontas and John Smith have met and fallen in love with each other. Smith is falsely-accused of killing Kocoum, Pocahontas' fiancée, and is captured and sentenced to execution by Chief Powhatan. The Indians plan a massive military campaign against the English, while the English respond with their own campaign of complete destruction. John Smith is seconds away from death when Pocahontas intervenes, proclaiming her love for him and stating how foolish all this violence has been. Chief Powhatan, with aid from the spirit of his late wife, lays down his arms and frees Smith. Governor Ratcliffe's authority is dismantled and now the two societies can begin healing under Pocahontas' guidance.

At the time of the film's production, there was much controversy about what really transpired that day. Recent scholarship has since eased up somewhat.

It was May 1607, and on a separate expedition along the Chickahominy River, John Smith and his crew were ambushed by a large party of Powhatans and taken into custody of Wahunsenacawh. It appears that this was a plan concocted by the chief with the goal of gaining more information about the English from a trusted source, as well as exercising his imperial authority over them. Jamestown was to be yet another addition to the empire of Tsenacomoco, and Wahunsenacawh to be their spiritual father. Smith was ritualy "executed" in December and the most that Matoaka seems to have played in this was symbolically "bringing him back to life". There is no evidence of romantic affection here. Smith was now Wahunsenacawh's "son" and an honorary, subordinate chieftan for Tsenacomoco, recalling in his writings "how well Powhatan loved and respected me". He was then returned to Jamestown in Janurary 1608 with promise of trade and aid for the colony, to whom Matoaka and the other Powhatan women brought maize and other crops to feed the starving, dying men. Smith would take on a greater authority in the maintainence of Jamestown (Hämäläinen, 2022; Mann, 2011 B).

This is certainly far from the legend surrounding Pocahontas and John Smith that we see in the film, much less in all the other media depictions which have heightened her role as well as her age. Says Curator of the Virginia Historical Society William M. S. Rasmussen, "almost every artist and writer who has dealt with the story of Pocahontas has made her considerably older. The historical facts have been manipulated by various artists, writers, and now filmmakers for well over 200 years, to get the greatest drama that they can out of it" (Live from Central Park, 1995). The film, indeed, makes a great deal out of the drama, taking what was originally the end of the first act and elevating it to the climax of the film as per the argument of Glen Keane (Audio Commentary, 2005). As a climax it is very effective and moving, and makes great use of both cinematography and score.

What is remarkable to discover that from the earliest stages of development, there was a goal to make a story that was closer to the actual history than what we got. Early concept art showed Pocahontas as a young child, for example. Co-director Mike Gabriel, the original source of inspiration behind the film recounted, "as soon as I thought of the Native American girl Pocahontas and her coming together with John Smith - a story of two separate, clashing worlds trying to understand each other - it hit me that this was it" (Rebello, 1995). During the infamous 1990 "gong show" meeting with Disney execs, Gabriel pitched his movie: "An Indian princess who is torn between her father's wishes to destroy the English settlers and her wishes to help them – a girl caught between her father and her people, and her love for the enemy."

There is, at first, no hint of a great romance between Pocahontas and John Smith, rather a general love for the English alongside that of her people. But it wouldn't be long before that changed.

The Greatest Love Story Ever Told

"For if I never knew you, if I never knew this love, I would have no inkling of how precious life can be." (Walt Disney Animation Studios)

The Disney higher-ups had been looking to work on an animated adaptation in the vein of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet at the start of the 1990s, but there were troubles with finding the right inspiration. So when Mike Gabriel came along and pitched his film - having already in his mind a desire to work on a Native American story - two-and-two clicked: the legend surrounding the supposed romance of Pocahontas and John Smith, which its setting in early America, seemed to work brilliantly in their minds (Rebello, 1995; Finch, 1995). If there was an interest in historical accuracy, it was mainly surface-level, as the Disney artists have repeatedly argued that their work was inspired first-and-foremost on the legend, not history. "We never wanted to do a docu-drama, but something that was inspired by the legend," said Peter Schneider; "We decided right off that we weren’t going to make a historical document, but a love story, an entertainment that was mindful of historical reality," said Mike Gabriel (Rebello, 1995).

In this way, any criticisms could be waved off, something which Head of Story Tom Sito said damningly, "a lot of times when we discussed with historians who are authorities on what exactly happened, everybody would always say ‘we believe that’ or ‘our guess is’ or ‘our best estimate is that this happened’, so in other words... you don’t really know! And it’s like no one really knows." (Live from Central Park, 1995). At the risk of seeming alarmist, this feels incredibly disrespectful to historians and is highly reminiscent of comments I've heard from other productions ranging from Ridley Scott's Napoleon to Netflix's Life on Our Planet. I don't claim that the Disney artists were being malicious, but in an age of misinformation and deliberate bending of facts to support harmful causes, media-producers must do better to find a good balance of fact and fantasy lest they give the impression that historians "don't really know" anything.

There was additional pressure to build a strong romantic story around these two figures: award recognition! In 1991, Beauty and the Beast was nominated for the Academy Award for "Best Picture", a feat which no animated film had ever achieved (and this was at a time before the creation of the much-criticized "Best Animated Picture" category). Then Studio-Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg felt the pressure to recreate this success, and Pocahontas was the only film that was early enough in development to allow for such changes.

Writing for the screenplay began in January of 1993 under a single writer Carl Binder, but it took two additional writers Susannah Grant and Philip LaZebnik to come on four months later to help work on it. Within 18 months and after 14 drafts, the script was completed (Rebello, 1995). Clearly a lot of challenging work went into fine-tuning this soon-to-be masterpiece, and this incentive was so strong that much of the Disney artists famously went to work on Pocahontas in place of The Lion King; there was a sense that something special was being created here. Art director Michael Giaimo explained, "we feel that we’ve pushed a lot of boundaries in this film with regard to design and color. For one thing, we set to make the characters the brightest, punchiest, warmest elements on the screen by sublimating the backgrounds". This was essentially a return to stylistic-form in Disney animation that had been retired since the 1950s (Bossert, 2015). The animators and clean up artists were responsible for giving subtle emotional performances to the human cast - a choice that has often been criticized by animation-reviewers but was deliberate as the filmmakers really strove for serious storytelling in place of exaggerated comedy, which was reserved for the animal characters (Rebello, 1995).

Thus, Pocahontas was almost from the beginning conceived as a serious melodrama that could pull on enough heartstrings to allow the nice fine folks at the Academy Awards to give the Disney studio more recognition and, thus, more dollars. The problem with this approach is twofold: 1) a good story is good because it is created for its own sake, so any recognition it deserves is earned through honest artistry; 2) in choosing to focus solely on drama and emotional set-pieces at the expense of other factors, like comedy, you wind up with a rather disjointed film.

Case in point. As much as I enjoy the muted character animation of Meeko the raccoon, Flit the hummingbird, and Percy the pug, they are often super distracting in the story. Serious scenes are inter-cut by their antics to the point where I'm not sure just what to feel as I watch. A good example is Pocahontas' meeting with her father Powhatan at the start of the film: we are being introduced to her conflict between her own desires and that of her people, but throughout we see Meeko and Flit messing around. It becomes hard to take what I'm seeing seriously. Their ultimate purpose in the film was, according to the directors, to be a mirror-reflection on the human conflicts (Audio Commentary, 2005). This is all well and good, but it almost feels like an afterthought that the filmmakers added to give the youngest viewers extra help in understanding the film's message of tolerance and acceptance.

Concluding Thoughts

"I'll always be with you, forever." (Walt Disney Animation Studios)

The film ends with John Smith getting accidentally shot by Governor Ratcliffe, so he is forced to leave for England to get treated. Pocahontas and Smith reaffirm their love, even as she chooses to stay and mediate peace between her people and the settlers.

It is true that John Smith experienced a gun-wound, but it appears that it was more of a mishap: "he somehow blew up a bag of gunpowder while wearing it around his neck" (Mann, 2011 A). By all accounts, Matoaka had believed he had died from this (Kurin, 2013). From there, the true story is inevitably miserable. Once Smith left, conditions deteriorated further. Several times Matoaka was credited with negotiating truces between the two societies, releasing Native prisoners from the English and securing food and important messages during times of need (Hoxie, 1996). This did not stop the Jamestown colonists from kidnapping Matoaka in the spring of 1613, hoping to lessen Wahunsenacawh's increased wrath on the settlement, but to no avail. By now the Powhatan viewed the English with contempt, and a number of battles had occurred with heavy casualties. By the time some semblance of negotiation occurred, Matoaka would never be reunited with her people: despite already being married - to Kocoum, who was a real Patawomeck soldier - she was wed to widower John Rolfe, baptised into the Anglican faith, renamed Lady Rebecca, and sent to England where she was publicized as "la belle sauvage" and eventually died of an unknown illness. We have no concrete knowledge of how Matoaka felt during all this. Though the marriage of Rolfe and Matoaka let to a temporary ceasefire, in the end Tsenacomoco was devastated and disbanded, the Virginia Company ran out of funds due to the heavy loss of life and profits, and Jamestown would eventually fall into declining importance as the new capital of Williamsburg was founded (Mann, 2011 B; Hoxie, 1996). John Smith would go on several more voyages to America, writing extensively of his travels, while Governor Ratcliffe would be killed early on in the fighting at Jamestown, being captured and flayed alive by the Powhatans.

Again, I wouldn't expect a mainstream American animated family film to portray any of this, but I do think that there is a rich and important story to be told here. Writing as I am in 2025, where the horrifying legacy of colonialism and racism is being actively expunged by the government, I can't help but feel more strongly about Pocahontas and what it could have been.

On the one hand, by itself, the film is a visual masterpiece, with a beautiful artistry and a great soundtrack. It's entertaining enough, and I like the characters and the performance of the cast. It bluntly shows the goals of the settlers in colonizing the Americas and their prejudicial thoughts about the Indigenous peoples, and for that I have to praise it. On the other hand, the melodrama of the plot wears the movie down where more nuanced storytelling could have helped it. Because of the reliance of drama above all else, the film feels disjointed and difficult to engage with emotionally. As well, the filmmaker's over-reliance on mythmaking and stereotypes - like the "noble savage", the "ecological Indian", and the seeming lack of empathy towards Indigenous resistance - weigh heavily on my mind with each watch.

In a way, Pocahontas is a movie that feels made by committee, despite the apparent sincerely and heart that the filmmakers seemed to genuinely believe in. Mike Gabriel, in a heartfelt message, stated, "ignorance and bigotry are taught. If this song, this movie, makes one child begin to question anyone who teaches hatred and fosters misunderstanding, that will be a wonderful thing" (Rebello, 1995). Likewise, Russell Means argued, "I love this film, and anybody that nitpicks it and criticizes it for historical accuracy is not a child. Doesn’t have the same sensations and feelings as children, you know? That’s all I care about. The children are gonna see this. They’re the future" (Live in Central Park, 1995).

To me, this brings up an important point: at the end of the day, as much of an animation-nerd as I am, these films are created to reach the widest possible audience and a primary chunk of that audience are children. If there are key lessons about love, peace, living together, and understanding that are received by these children and then acted upon, then I think that is a net positive. Certainly me and my generation that grew up with the film gained such insights. But this cannot truly be all that children get from Pocahontas; the subject material and setting necessitate that children walk away from the film with certain inaccurate notions about Indigenous peoples and European colonization. If unchecked, then that is a net negative. Thankfully, there has seemed to be efforts from the public to ensure children are getting the right knowledge: following the film's release, attendance to the Jamestown historical site rose by 60% from the previous summers, with one interpreter stating that they've been "pleasantly surprised at how much parental concern there is for children getting more than was shown in the movie" (Edgerton & Jackson, 1996). Clearly, parents, guardians, and teachers introducing children to the film must open dialogues and do what they can to foster a healthy understanding about the birth of the modern world and their relationship to other peoples.

I will leave you all with this. Shirley “Little Dove” McGowan was a Pamunkey consultant for the film, but only briefly. She recounts the following: "I was honored to be asked by them... but I wasn't at the studio two hours before I began to make clear my objections to what they were doing... they had said that the film would be historically accurate. I soon found that it wasn't to be. I wish my name wasn't on it. I wish Pocahontas' name wasn't on it." When faced with the finished product, her "heart sorrowed" (Edgerton & Jackson, 1996). As a descendant of Tsenacomoco, I can only wonder what she experienced at Disney and what went through her head as she watched the film.

Indigenous Americans have known since first contact that depictions of themselves and their lifeways have nearly always been tainted by stereotypes and myths perpetuated by colonizing powers. For every step forward, there seem to be ten steps taken back. Pocahontas, much as we may like about it, has followed this history likewise: it is a film about Native Americans created by white people which has overtaken much of the contemporary discussion about the real Matoaka and her life. In an age where now, finally, Indigenous groups are creating their own media, this history is changing. Will we see Pocahontas again in a new light? Or, perhaps, it is better that she finally rest in peace.

Book References

Kaj Birket-Smith - Primitive Man and His Ways: “Powhatan and Pamlico” (Mentor Books, 1960)

Dave Bossert - Walt Disney Records: The Legacy Collection - Pocahontas (Walt Disney Records, 2015)

John. H. Elliott - Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America 1492-1830 (Yale University Press, 2006)

Christopher Finch - The Art of Walt Disney: from Mickey Mouse to the Magic Kingdoms (Harry N. Abrams Incorporated, 1995)

Pekka Hämäläinen - Indigenous Continent: The Epic Contest for North America (Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2022)

Frederick E. Hoxie, et al. - Encyclopedia of North American Indians (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996)

Richard Kurin - The Smithsonian’s History of America in 101 Objects (The Penguin Press, 2013)

Charles C. Mann - 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, 2nd Ed. (Vintage Books, 2011 A)

Charles C. Mann - 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created (Vintage Books, 2011 B)

Stephen Rebello - The Art of Pocahontas (Hyperion, 1995)

Media References

Audio Commentary - Pocahontas 10th Anniversary Edition DVD (2005)

Live from Central Park: Disney’s Pocahontas - the Premiere in the Park (1995) LINK

The Making of Pocahontas: A Legend Comes to Life (1995) LINK

Paper and Article Citations

Daily Press - “History Coming to Life in Disney Animation” (1993)

Gary Edgerton & Kathy Merlock Jackson, 1996. Redesigning Pocahontas: Disney, the “White Man's Indian,” and the Marketing of Dreams (Journal of Popular Film and Television)