Parekh Reading Response

The article “Pocahontas: The Disney Imaginary” by Pushpa Naidu Parekh examines and subsequently criticizes Disney’s ability to use animation as a form of cultural hegemony. Parekh develops a relatively confusing argument that is hard to follow for the most part. The perplexity of his argument can be attributed to rhetoric that led to a lot of googleing and citation of outside sources. Many of the quotes included brought in ideas that weren’t expanded upon and left me confused. For most of the article I thought Parekh was merely criticizing Disney’s exploitation of a mass genocide for profit, but towards the end of the article his argument comes full circle. Ultimately, I found the article to make a lot of intelligent, agreeable claims as well as many that are a stretch.

Right off the bat Parekh begins criticizing Disney. Paraekh introduces the idea of a “myth” of colonial “discovery” that he believes Disney perpetuates. While not clear, I believe Parekh puts “discovery” in quotation marks to mock Disney for acting like the settlers discovered the lands that were already inhabited, and since they were inhabited…it means they were already discovered. When analyzing Pocahontas, Parekh attributes her innocence and connection with animals to the “noble savage” myth that Hollywood has created for her. I find this claim to be exaggerated and untrue. While I believe Disney’s false depiction of colonization is unjust, I believe they cast Pocahontas in a positive light. Pocahontas in my mind promotes an egalitarian world and free spirit, qualities that their depiction of colonization doesn’t. In my opinion, the strongest part of the argument is when Parekh addresses the omissions of facts in Pocahontas. When John Smith sails to what is now the United States, he was 27 years old. Pocahontas, on the other hand, was about 11 or 12 years old, which now makes the plot of the movie very creepy. Additionally, the film leaves out that Mulan was kidnapped and forced to change her name to “Rebecca”. Just as the omission of certain masculine characteristics for princesses furthers gendered messages, the absence of certain facts perpetuates the “myth” that Parekh explains and condemns. Parekh’s argument is that Disneys commercial power allows them to influence the beliefs of its audience and cast colonization in a lighter note and chalk it up to “petty individual acts of greed and intolerance.” Furthermore, I disagree with Parekh’s claim that Disney consciously “rationalizes the appropriation and often blatant misrepresentation of” history. While I agree Disney portrays colonization a non-violent and historically incorrect light, but Parekh’s claim that Disney polices our memory is a little too extreme. Even though this article was intended to criticize Disney’s portrayal of Native Indians in Pocahontas, Parekh’s reference to The Jungle Book was the most interesting aspect of the argument in my opinion. While I already knew the depiction of Pocahontas was historically inaccurate, I never thought of the “myth” being an aspect of The Jungle Book, my favorite Disney movie.