"Eh? How is Pocahontas revisionist history?"
From the NY Times review of the film.
"Fathers across America will soon be volunteering in record numbers to take the children to the movies, and here's why: Pocahontas is a babe. She's the first Disney animated heroine since Tinker Bell with great legs, maybe with any legs. She wears form-fitting, off-the-shoulder buckskin that would be as much at home in Beverly Hills as in 17th-century Jamestown. She's got sloe eyes, a rosebud mouth, billowing black hair and terrific muscle tone. And she is the centerpiece of a film that's as great-looking as its heroine.
Meanwhile, among the many things the film neglects to mention: Pocahontas later married a different Englishman and was christened Rebecca. John Smith was punished for insubordination en route from England to Virginia. Pocahontas's saving his life may have been more politic than the melodramatic gesture Captain Smith later made famous. Any damage such revisionist history may impose on young minds is offset by the honestly inspiring thoughts "Pocahontas" offers. In its own decorative way, the film does show how this young American Indian woman played an important role as peacemaker. "Pocahontas" also presents the Virginia woodlands as breathtakingly beautiful and laments the despoiling of such a paradise. Only by aging the brave and precocious Pocahontas from 12 or 13 into the flirty, full-grown vixen she becomes here, and by making her so concerned with finding Mr. Right, does the film send any regrettable message."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE2DC1F3AF930A15755C0A963958260
.gif?width=300)
