Pocahontas: Peacemaker or Traitor?
By Emslie Stevenson, with comments by Ed Gallagher, Caitlin Prozonic, Kelley Higgins, Karen Haberland, Olga Zhakova, and James
[1] The scene of Pocahontas’s banishment in The New World is unique among the film versions of the Pocahontas story. Other versions sometimes show Pocahontas being gently chastised for her exuberance, independence, or lack of restraint, but no other film comes as close to pinning the blame for the Native Americans’ fate on her. The New World implies that Pocahontas is banished because she assisted the colonists in planting corn and establishing a permanent settlement, when her father had insisted that the Englishmen leave as soon as their ships returned. Pocahontas’s banishment thus imputes to her the responsibility for her tribe’s eventual banishment by the English settlers -- she is identified not, as in the other films, as a peacemaker, but as a traitor to her people. (comment by Olga Zhakova) (comment by James "Alec" Murphy)
[2] The scene is set up as a kind of antithetical parallel to the scene of John Smith’s capture (22:55). Both scenes open with the captive being led into the village in the exact same route, through a pair of trees. In the scene of Smith’s capture he is forcibly dragged into the village, followed and harassed by a crowd of whooping warriors, while Pocahontas is led by one brave and followed by silently curious women and other members of the tribe. Both Smith and Pocahontas are led into the same dark, smoky lodge, but in Smith’s scene it is full of noise and people. When Pocahontas is led before her father, she is left alone with him.
[3] The camera work in the earlier scene creates a feeling of confusion, recreating for the audience Smith’s disorientation. Pocahontas’s scene, on the other hand, is shot in a quiet, straightforward manner. There is a sense of helpless sadness, evoked by the soft, plaintive music and by the characters’ dialogue. Powhatan’s demeanor in this scene is in stark contrast with his behavior towards the captured Smith. Instead of the fierce, powerful leader, he is shown as an elderly father, deeply hurt by his daughter and torn between adherence to the law and to his fatherly feelings. His words to Pocahontas are pained. (comment by Ed Gallagher) (comment by Olga Zhakova) “You were the light of my life . . . my joy,†he says (1:08:23). The camera cuts between shots of Pocahontas’s anguished expression and Powhatan’s silhouette against the outside light. He stands with his back to his daughter for most of the scene, as though to look at her would make his pain that much greater. He sighs and admits that “I cannot give you over to die . . . I am too old to bear it†(1:08:40). Pocahontas can make no reply but “Forgive me father†(1:08:55). (comment by Ed Gallagher)
[4] The association between the scenes of Smith’s and Pocahontas’s captures reinforces the association between the two characters. Interestingly, these two scenes result in the “adoption†of each into the other’s culture. In Smith’s case, the adoption is a direct result of his capture. However, in Pocahontas’s case the connection is a little less clear. Pocahontas’s banishment leads to her relocation, which ends with the English trading a copper kettle for her. Smith’s isolation from his English comrades is highlighted by the ease with which he fits into the Native American way of life, and Pocahontas’s banishment sets her apart from her own people as it emphasizes her connection to the English, for which she is being punished.
[5] Pocahontas's presence in the English settlement does not necessarily lead to peace with the Native Americans, but, instead, the story from here on focuses on her life with John Rolfe and her journey to England. By eliminating Pocahontas’s connection with her people, the film’s writers eliminate the possibility that she functioned as a peacekeeper between the two cultures. The film illustrates how she was disowned by her own people and slowly converted to the English way of life. This is a huge difference from almost all other representations of Pocahontas. She has functioned culturally as a bridge between the Native and English cultures. Idealized and taken as a representative of Native Americans as a whole, Pocahontas’s cooperation with the English colonizers has functioned as a justification for the colonial project and a creation myth for America.
[6] On one hand, it is possible that Malick's telling the story in this way is the closest estimate to historical fact, as the myth of Pocahontas the peacemaker is probably idealized. Painting her as a girl who did not know exactly what she was doing but who saved a man because she loved him and tried to help him, seems as though it would be a more accurate representation of history. However, at the same time, there is no evidence in the historical record to support the idea that Pocahontas was other than peacemaker. Certainly there is no evidence that she was banished by her father for helping the English settlers. Such evidence is surely nonexistent because neither Pocahontas nor her people ever wrote down their own story.
[7] The idea of Pocahontas’s banishment resonates with history. It would seem that Pocahontas’s recorded role in the colonial history, of providing food and supplies to the colonists, would itself have been worthy of blame as the settlers encroached further on Native American lands. Someone who assisted the enemy may well have been banished from the tribe in shame. The fact, recorded in historical documents, that Pocahontas was held captive by the English with no contest from her people, even though she was Powhatan’s beloved daughter, may indicate that she had been banished and so was denied the help of her tribe. The idea of banishment also contributes to making her conversion to Christianity and English culture even more believable. If she had nowhere else to go, resignation may have led her to the path of least resistance. Factual or not, the idea presented in The New World that Pocahontas was banished by her father is the closest any film comes to blaming her for the subsequent fate of Native Americans. (see comment by Karen Haberland)
Comments
Emslie, I think a relevant enhancement of your point about the pathos of Powhatan, torn between powerful chief and wounded father, comes at the end of the scene when we are behind him as he walks slowly and painfully away from banishing Pocahontas yet receives but is oblivious to the timid obeisance of his subjects. A nice touch punctuating Powhatan's situation at this point, I think.
Ed Gallagher 1/07/08
Yes, yes, where is the feisty, self-assured, self-righteous Pocahontas of other representations, eh? She is destroyed here, devastated. After all, the brutal truth, the reality, of the war introduces this scene, where the carnage of the battle is viciously depicted (the noise there contrasting so meaningfully to the somber silence here) -- a battle in which she witnesses the death of her brother. And, I dunno, maybe we have to say more than just banishment occurs here. She is repudiated, disowned, rendered non-existent. She is no longer Powhatan's daughter, which perhaps is the reason why later in the fort when Mary arrives to take care of her that she has no name (1:31:28). I may be pushing this too far, but on shipboard to England when she sees Tomocomo, he explains that Powhatan has sent him, not for any reason relating to her, but to learn about the English. She is truly rendered a woman without a country in your scene.
Emslie, although I see what you are saying, I cannot agree that the film is "pinning the blame" for the Natives on Pocahontas's fate. Moreover, I don't feel that the Natives are blamed for anything in the movie. What I see is that the Englishmen came to this beautiful land and to this unagressive people and with their behavior brought two cultures into severe conflict. Pocahontas, helping the enemy, would be considered a traitor in any culture, so it was logical to me that she was banished by her tribe. So I feel that the film, by showing Pocahontas's banishment by her own tribe, even emphasizes the fact that it is Englishmen who should be blamed for everything that happened. I agree that Pocahontas is not depicted as a peacemaker, but for me the consequences for the viewer of her depiction as a traitor are very complex. Such depiction does two crucial things: first of all, it shows that the Englishmen brought the relationships between two cultures to a disaster since a person who was a symbol of the culture's cooperation and friendship was caught between these two fighting cultures with no way to reconcile them. Secondly, Pocahontas's banishment meant that she had no longer any choice -- now the only thing that was left for her was to join the Englishmen. This fact questions the credibility that Pocahontas chose to go with the Englishmen willingly, by herself, just because she wanted to belong to this culture. So all her subsequent actions are marked with the absence of choice, not with admiration of and submission to the European culture. Thus, for Pocahontas's banishment I could only blame the Englishmen coming to this wonderful land and destroying its people, both physically and spiritually. That is why I see Pocahontas neither as a peacekeeper nor as a traitor -- I see her an inevitable victim of the Englishmen policy.
Stevenson claims that "[Pocahontas] is identified not, as in the other films, as a peacemaker, but as a traitor to her people." Stevenson claims that this is the reason she leaves the her tribe. Her claim is based on the fact that Pocahontas helps establish the English by helping them plant corn and establish a permanent settlement. While this may be true, her helping them establish a permanent settlement and upsetting her elders is not the entire reason Pocahontas leaves her tribe. In my opinion, her eventual fate with the English is multi-faceted. While she may have upset her tribe, I believe she would have ended up with the English regardless. Since we see her fall in love not once but twice with English settlers (when she could much more easily live a life with a man of her own tribe), it is evident that her intended association is not with her native people, but with the English. Stevenson places the reason of her transition too heavily on her relationship with displeasing her native family and does not give enough attention to her clear draw to the English people, as seen throughout both of her relationships.
Emslie, I like your phrase "His words to Pocahontas are pained" -- the scene is very powerful, I could almost feel the father's pain. Especially when he was walking away as if his clothes were too heavy for him and the viewer could almost physically feel it, symbolizing that his grief was pressing him into the ground. Feeling this father's pain, I, as a human being, was trying to find the cause to blame for this pain -- and I found it in the Englishmen who came to the land of these people and made them suffer and took this innocent pure girl to their civilization where her heart and spirit couldn't adopt and she couldn't survive.
Pocahontas also could never have been a peacekeeper because she never held enough power to do anything. While she was with her tribe, she did the one thing she could do; help others survive. Then she was traded to the settlers, not by any choice much less with traitorous or peaceable intentions. And while she was in Jamestown, she had no choice but to accept their ways. But I think the most telling example of how Pocahontas was simply a girl caught between two worlds comes in the very last scene in which we see her. She is in England, wearing proper English clothing and walking in a perfectly manicured park, but she is still that native girl. Her hair has started to become undone, she runs up to trees, and, most importantly of all, she jumps into the water and prays to her Mother in the same motions that she used in the beginning, before the settlers came to the New World. She has not left her world; she has simply become part of two. (see comment by Caitlin Prozonic)
I somewhat disagree that Pocahontas was not a peacekeeper. At least, I think she tried to be a peacekeeper. To some extent, I feel that she was successful in that when she brought the food to the Englishmen in the winter, I think this deterred them from fighting with the natives some. Pocahontas had good intentions, and I think this kind gesture was partially done to make peace between the two societies, showing John Smith, the man that she loved, that she could accept both cultures. She wanted the two groups to be one and get along, not to be separate and fight. You might even be able to say that she wanted the natives and the English to get along so that the English would stay, not because she wanted the English to invade their land, but because if the English stayed, then Smith would stay as well. Her “peacekeeper†attitude may have had an ulterior motive, and the intention may have been selfish, but her heart was in the right place, and I believe she did achieve her goals in some respects. In fact, the English never attacked her; she was respected by the foreign people. I cannot disagree that she failed at her attempts to keep peace, but I believe that she wanted to preserve peace between the two cultures as much as possible. (see comment by Kelley Higgins)
To add to Caitlin’s post, I strongly agree that Pocahontas served as a peacekeeper and not a traitor. She had no relationship with Smith or obligation to defend him at the time her father attempted to murder him, yet by jumping in front of his body, she prevented the Indians and colonists from establishing a purely violent relationship. Whether her instinct to save Smith transpired out of attraction towards him or not, her bravery in standing up to her father and the rest of the tribe can still be considered an intentional act in which she put her life at risk to save someone else’s. In other words, her actions intentionally fostered peace as opposed to cruelty. Her willingness to learn English from Smith enabled her to act as a liaison between the two cultures, and her aid to the colonists allowed both cultures to subsist on the land. In fact, Burgoyne points out in his article the colonist’s recognition of Pocahontas’s ability to be a peacekeeper because of her strong influence on her father because she was the favored child: “She is then abducted by the Jamestown colonists -- against Smith’s wishes -- who believed that her presence in the fort would protect them from Powhatan, who could have massacred them all.â€
Pocahontas was not a traitor even though she maintained alliances with both groups because her purpose was not to cause harm to her native tribe in doing so. It can be argued that her actions were actually beneficial to the Indians in realizing the need to create peace so that the lives of her own were not lost in battle. If Pocahontas were a traitor, I doubt she would have been so upset and in shock over her father’s decision to disown her and cast her out of the village.
