I remember hearing about John Rolfe being a tobacco farmer. That definitely wouldn't have passed family/parent standards, especially for a Disney movie. Yeah, either John Rolfe or John Smith apparently saw Pocahontas as something other than a savage heathen. That's really not something they want for a family film, even though both films aren't historical accurate, so they made it happier for the kids.
I actually remember reading a brief page in my history textbook a couple of years ago about Pocahontas and John Rolfe. Darn textbooks for not telling the whole story and reducing it to the size of a paragraph. Anyway, I kind of laugh when people in my class said, "Pocahontas was real?" Thank you, Disney for not labeling that the first film was not the true story and that kids should look it up in the library if they want to know more. At least they fixed that mistake in the sequel.
I did know that Pocahontas died from disease, but I thought that her child died too and that they were in England at the time. I actually read up and found out that there are thousands of people whose ancestors are Pocahontas and John Rolfe. That sound really nice and I'm glad that people could trace their roots like that.
And now to be more on topic:
I'm not sure if I would go that far. I know that Disney sequels have a bad reputation, but I find a vast majority of them to be at least decent enough to watch. The only ones that I find so horrible are Mulan 2 and Pocahontas 2. I also didn't like Brother Bear 2 because of how I felt that it really wasn't needed and that the love focus of the story was much weaker than the original movie. Even though I didn't like that sequel, to me, it was at least more watchable than Mulan 2 or Pocahontas 2. Most other sequels that I've seen aren't as good as the first movie, except for Toy Story 2, but they're decent and watchable.