Guilty Of Reinforcing...Um, Historical Reality?
Andrew Pulver writes at The Guardian that Netflix altered its description of Pocahontas after feminist grievance hunters got panty-bunched over it. The original:
"An American Indian woman is supposed to marry the village's best warrior, but she yearns for something more - and soon meets Capt. John Smith."
The revised:
"A young American Indian girl tries to follow her heart and protect her tribe when settlers arrive and threaten the land she loves."
Now I'm no American Indian scholar, but from what I know of anthropology and biological sex differences, pretty much, it was the rare woman in history who was out there "protecting her tribe" the way tribes are protected: By killing the fuck out of the invaders.
Me? I have superboobs, and I can just point them at dangerous people and rays shoot out and incinerate them.
But Pocahontas? I'm doubting that was one of her charms.
So that's why I get hot reading your site...
Lastango at September 29, 2015 12:46 AM
It would be more historically accurate to say:
A young american indian preteen was sold into sex slavery by her father to appease the Jamestown company's mercenary, hire specifically to kill as many indians as possible.
But thats too disturbing for Disney so we decided to make the premenstrual 12 year old look 22, and made the ugly anti social mass murdering sociopath into a blond blue eyed nature loving aryan hero.
Then we pretended that talking trees and singing squirrels prevented genocide (it didnt) and they all lived happily ever after (they didnt) and that she didnt eventually die of tuberculosis a few years after a series of gang rapes by british soldiers (she did/was)
lujlp at September 29, 2015 1:03 AM
Quite frankly I'm offended that this apparently Native woman was more offended by some asinine blurb describing the hatchet job Disney movie than the movie itself.
lujlp at September 29, 2015 1:09 AM
"An American Indian woman is supposed to marry the village's best warrior, but she yearns for something more"
So her owner, ahem, I mean husband had been selected for her but she rebelled against it. This offends how?
Ltw at September 29, 2015 3:09 AM
AMy, you borrowing costumes from Katy Perry again?
mer at September 29, 2015 3:09 AM
Had to be done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy_vDj1bec4
As to Pocahontas , I've heard too many variations with Disney's talking animals being the most believable part of their stories.
Joe j at September 29, 2015 3:16 AM
Either description is about as historically accurate as the movie.
Elle at September 29, 2015 6:50 AM
Change John Smith's name to Mujin Muhammed and note how the reaction changes.
Cousin Dave at September 29, 2015 6:56 AM
Change John Smith's name to Mujin Muhammed and note how the reaction changes.
Well, it's their culture and all, and it should be respected. Even if she was 6 when they got married, and 9 when he consummated the marriage.
Don't be such puritanical fuddy-duddies. White privilege!
I R A Darth Aggie at September 29, 2015 7:20 AM
You mean Rebecca Rolfe?
Conan the Grammarian at September 29, 2015 9:02 AM
In modern times, people vaguely related to Native Americans love to play the sympathy card. Reality has nothing to do with it.
There's the idea of these peaceful tribes that lived in harmony with nature (with sparkly unicorns) until the evil Europeans arrived. In fact, the tribes were mostly violent, warring with each other mercilessly. Just like the rest of the human race.
Were they mistreated by their conquerors? Of course they were, but that is also entirely normal in human nature and history. The unusual aspect is that there was even an attempt to provide reservations, and some chance to preserve their culture.
Today, the huge number of people claiming Native American ancestry need to realize (like so many other groups): it isn't about you. Enjoy your fantasies of how life ought to be, but realize that it just ain't so.
a_random_guy at September 29, 2015 9:49 AM
I'm old enough to remember when Indians weren't Indians, but French, until it became profitable to become Indians again. Such is life.
Dave B at September 29, 2015 11:03 AM
I've heard more than once that it's likely that John Smith simply made up that rescue by Pocahontas. At any rate, she married John Rolfe - don't know how willingly.
lenona at September 29, 2015 5:11 PM
But can they sing with all the voices of the mountains? Can they paint with all the colors of the wind?
Patrick at September 29, 2015 6:17 PM
Smith included the same story in his published adventures in what is now Turkey.
It may be a true story, but it may not have involved Pocahantas / Rebecca Rolfe.
Conan the Grammarian at September 29, 2015 7:24 PM
For the record, here's what historian Richard Shenkman wrote in LEGENDS, LIES AND CHERISHED MYTHS OF AMERICAN HISTORY (pp 110-111, paperback edition):
http://lumbee-genealogy.org/legends-lies.htm
"The story about Pocahontas's saving Smith's life is a matter of dispute. Smith first related the story ten years after it had supposedly happened. When he did, no one stepped forward to corroborate the tale. Furthermore, he told it at a suspiciously opportune moment in 1616, when Pocahontas, then the celebrated wife of Virginia planter John Rolfe, was being courted by the British royal family. Even Smith's defenders admit he probably brought the story up in order to ingratiate himself with the crown. When Pocahontas appeared at court, Smith sent the queen a little book explaining how the young Indian had 'hazarded the beating out of her own brains to save mine.' " (3)
Shenkman's notes on his sources:
3 Dixon Wector, pp. 17-25; Alvin M. Josephy, ed., THE AMERICAN HERITAGE BOOK OF INDIANS (1982), p. 165; Alden Vaughan, "Beyond Pocahontas," New York Times Book Review (June 29, 1986), pp. 27-28
lenona at October 1, 2015 7:55 AM
Leave a comment