Summary of "Pocahontas: The Disney Imaginary" by Pushpa Naidu Parekh

I really did not enjoy this piece as a whole. It was long, drawn out, and the language used put me right to sleep. Some of the claims were also simply wrong. Parekh's portrayal of Pocahontas was much more savage than the actual movie shows her as. Paekh accuses Disney of depicting Powhatan as "unreasonable and temperamental; fitting therefore in his practice of 'savage' acts of violence, such as preparing to behead John Smith" (167). I do not agree with this statement at all. Powhatan wants to behead John Smith because one of the white men killed Kocoum, a member of their tribe. This death is justified, especially during that time period, and especially due to the tensions between the Native Americans and the British. They were practically at war with one another- it is not uncommon at all to kill a prisoner of war. This does not make Powhatan "savage," but in fact makes him civil for abiding by a similar law code to "an eye for an eye." If he had no law code or morals to live by, then he could be considered savage.

An argument that is not so bad in this article is the depicting Pocahontas as the "other." The argument is that the Pocahontas is only there to teach John Smith about his people's ethnocentrism and why it is wrong. Parekh writes, "Isn't her subjectivity merely an instrument for enlightening the narrow-minded English settlers?" (168). I do not fully agree with the argument in this case because the story isn't entirely centered around the British, the storyline mostly follows Pocahontas. However, this argument is similar to the one about women only being included in Disney movies for the gains of the man, either to be his prize, or to teach him a lesson. Either way, her life is devoted to his.

Parekh makes an assertion that Indian women are only seen as either an "undifferentiated mass of workers" or heroines who are "against their own people." Parekh then provides no evidence for this assertion and goes into the "other" argument. Finally the author comes back to it later in the next paragraph to back up the statement, but the reasoning for this bad organization is a mystery to me.

Parekh includes a list of movies five lines long when stating which ones include the story of Pocahontas saving John Smith. I guess this is to emphasize how common the story is, but it is not necessary. The author could have just used a footnote instead of wasting the reader's time.

The author does include interesting information when Parekh brings up that in other stories, Pocahontas is only a child of eleven or twelve and John Smith is twenty-five. The relationship would then be more father-daughter-like.... I'm hoping. Of course Disney had to change her age though, because what is a Disney movie without a love story?

Parekh makes a point about Disney perpetuating inaccurate ideologies that pervade into modern thinking. Most people do not agree that Disney is responsible for telling accurate stories; however, there is some merit to this argument. Disney movies are not documentaries so they hold no social obligation; however, they are very popular and stick with a kid throughout their life. But, even if they are not accurate, the movies draw attention to events children might otherwise not care about, which could spark real learning.