And, yes, I have noticed Disney attempting to wheedle themselves into other cultures. Lilo and Stitch is centered in a very culturally colorful Hawaii. Brother Bear explored the beliefs of the Inuits in Canada and Alaskan Territory. And so on.

In regards to the Pocahontas issue, I had heard a rumor back when I was in, maybe, middle school, that the reason they made a sequel to Pocahontas was because teachers complained to Disney that their elementary age students were arguing with them. According to the rumor (Which Disney never verified) when they taugh that Pocahontas married John Rolfe and went to England as a sort of Native American ambassador, the students would retaliate saying that the teachers were wrong and Disney was right! After all, if it’s on the BIG SCREEN, it must be true, right? So Disney was pestered into making the sequel to correct their previous blunder. (Which was all right with them, since it was only going to make them more cash anyway.)

I’m usually disappointed when anyone makes a movie about a true historical event, because it’s seldom done correctly. To teach children fantasy is one thing. Children naturally live in their imaginations anyway. But to teach them lies? There isn’t any excuse for that. Especially not when they’ll be more apt to believe a movie than the truth. Disney’s slogan should be “When ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise!”

I happened to like Mulan a lot! I didn’t consider it propaganda as much as some other films I could mention. And based on what I know of Chinese history, Mulan was a fairly accurate description of the way women were treated. Not only that, but you realize the character was seeking EQUALITY not SUPERIORITY. Once the empire was saved, she was offered a position in the palace, which she turned down in favor of returning to her village and family to be a homemaker, and idea abhorrent to true feminists. Most women in the feminist movement would not only have taken the position as the cheif scribe, but put in a bill for empress as well. In that way, I didn’t see the film as propaganda.

Pocahontas was a bit more on the propaganda side. First of all, it romanticized the John Smith character, who was historically famous for his tall tales (However good his economic genius was). Second, it overplayed the Native American tribes’ dependence of supernatural forces. While they did look to these spirits for good crops, large families, and strength to fight, they did not look to them to learn how to speak the king’s English. Nor did the settlers readily attack the Native Americans. Historically, when Pocahontas befriended the religious Christian, John Rolfe, converted to Christianity and became engaged to him, the Natives revolted by attacking the settlers as well as Pocahontas herself! If anyone was the target in the historical account, it was Christians, not the local tribes. (Also I do wish they could strike a balance between abusing the earth’s resources, and worshipping them. They overplayed the Mother Earth thing way too much in that film. It was almost Pantheistic. This is what we’re teaching our five year olds? That every rock and tree has a life and a spirit? Please. They’re confused enough as it is!)

Sorry, I tend to know more about animated movies than anything else. Being a kid at heart, I think it’s where I really belong. This concludes my daily rant.