When studying legendary Americans, sometimes the famous legends tell more of the audience than of the subject itself. It speaks of the audience’s thoughts and values at the time. And looking at how the legend is portrayed over time can yield valuable information on how those views change over time as well. Such is the case of John F. Kennedy. From his time in office to the present, the criteria Americans have judged him by for his role in the Cold War has shifted from actions to result. And while the views of 1960 America may seem intolerant for questioning the concept of a Catholic President, historical context shows that it was more tolerant than its own past.  And the America today still seems to promote religious tolerance with Kennedy being used in civic texts like children’s books to promote equal rights regardless of religion. From these two trends, it is shown that the standards of judging past political figures have shifted to include results and also that there’s a rising religious tolerance throughout American history.

One conclusion that can be drawn from Kennedy’s image during the Cold War leader is this: In times of danger or crises concerning the nation, the American people will look for a leader to unite them. Kennedy’s crisis was the Cold War. The nation feared the spread of Communism, the antithesis of the American ideal. Furthermore, the worst case scenario was thought to be obliteration of the country in nuclear war. Even if the American were to win in that war, Kennedy remarked that fruits of victory would be like “ashes in the mouth” (Smith, 272). Kennedy received a lot of support from the American people whenever he confronted the Communist threat. For example, his approval ratings went up to around 74% after the dealings of the Cuban Missile Crises (Smith, 269). As far as the American public knew, he managed to stare down Khrushchev into submitting. But it didn’t matter if his plans were successful or not so long he was fighting Communism. For example, the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba ended up in disaster; yet Kennedy’s approval ratings rose to his highest of all times at 83% after the American public found out (to which Kennedy later remarked, “I hope I don’t have to keep doing stupid things….to remain popular”) (Tuzzleman). What we can draw from this analysis is that the American people under crises seek a leader to unite them and if he successfully does so, his results are less important than his actions. But the opposite is also true! In the Civil Rights movement in September of 1963, Kennedy’s approval rating sunk to the lowest of his term of 56% (Presidential). The protesters and the violence demonstrated disunity within the country, something Kennedy was to have remedied and so his approval ratings dropped for not fulfilling his “role”.

Now that the Cold War is over and Kennedy is gone, Kennedy’s role as of uniting the people is not as needed. Today, his acts of “doing something” is not enough and so results now play a bigger role in judging his image. This is exemplified with Kennedy being well remembered for his role in peacefully ending the Cuban Missile Crisis along with the signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. But with more focus on results today, events like the Bay of Pigs has also lost support and is now regarded as a disaster and is ironically seen as a symbol of US fallibility (Weiner). Some might contest that the real reason why there is more focus on the results today is not the importance of unity back then but rather that time allowed society to observe results more carefully. Hindsight is 20/20 and more time before events allow for more thorough analysis. It could be possible that Americans did care for results but couldn’t clearly interpret them at the time. However, even a brief glimpse of Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs result would show America’s defeat with 100 out of 1500 killed and many captured (Weiner). There would be little reason for the event to boost Kennedy’s popularity at that time other than the fact he was acting against Communism. In addition to reversing the view of the past, the views may be exaggerated as well. Many quotes still exist today expressing the fear of nuclear war at the time. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara observed “I thought I might never see a Saturday night again.” A Soviet Chief of Operations commented “Nuclear catastrophe….was counted down by minutes.” (Smith, 265) However, a survey of the American people shows that there was little fear of a nuclear war even during the Cuban missile crises! During the weeks after Kennedy’s address only 12% of the poll stated the Cuban situation changed their daily life and only 4% of the population engaged in any safety activity. Furthermore, thoughts of death decreased by 8% and overall happiness increased 5% from the spring. (Smith, 272) It seems that over time, the American people have exaggerated the fear of nuclear war in the ‘60s. But why? It might be that exaggerating the dangers of the past would increase its perceived difference with the present, thus increasing the perceived result of Kennedy. Of course, there are other possibilities of why the fears were exaggerated. The public could possibly not have known of the gravity of the situation during the Cuban Missile Crisis and only have known the true danger they were in after the polls were taken. But it is unlikely that this is the case. The polls were taken after Kennedy’s public announcement of the missiles on October 22, 1962.

Another point of interest of Kennedy’s legacy is that his religion, Catholicism, broke a tradition of Protestant presidents. Kennedy Catholicism shows an increased religious tolerance among Americans in historical context along with a respect for intellectual achievements and wealth. During the 60’s there was some concern over a Catholic becoming President. One issue was the possibility of the head of state becoming a subordinate of the Catholic state and Pope. It could possibly dictate the policy from education to abortion (Burns, 248). In a survey of 1956, over 20% of the polls stated that they wouldn’t vote for a Catholic President even if he were well qualified. However, the objections of the 1960s to a Catholic President were less than its predecessors in the 1920s. In the 1920s, the Catholics were still primarily immigrants and thus had little entry into politics. The last Catholic presidential candidate was Al Smith of 1928. So what was the difference between Kennedy and Al?  Al was a provincial New York candidate and mostly relied on the local vote. But Kennedy had crossed all boundaries of his immigrant past, save for religion. He had wealth, Harvard education and intellectual achievements. Furthermore, the Catholics made social advances in the realm of politics between the 1920’s and 1960s. “By 1958, Catholics had been elected governor or United States senator in states where catholic voters were a minority, including California, Ohio Pennsylvania and even Minnesota.” (Burns, 252-253)  When Kennedy won 61% of the vote in the West Virginia Primary against Hubert Humphrey, it was clear that Kennedy had overcome any anti-Catholic sentiment at the time to claim the Democratic nomination (Burner, 49). What this shows is that the Americans in the ‘60s had enough religious tolerance to nominate and elect a Catholic President. It also reveals that Americans are concerned with other image factors other than religion such as education and wealth, reasons of why the image of Kennedy was more appealing than that of Al Smith.  Some might point out that it may be too hasty to draw that conclusion because Al Smith and Kennedy ran at different times. And it is possible that had Al Smith ran in an environment similar to that of1960 America, he probably would have faced less opposition concerning his religion. However, it is highly unlikely that the nation as a whole in any time period would have preferred the “provincial, salty, wisecracking New Yorker” over the” wealthy, Brahmin accented” Kennedy (Burns, 252).

Today, Kennedy being a Catholic is used as an example of the freedom of religion America. Civic texts like a children’s book states that Kennedy stood up for his rights to be President.” Nobody asked me if I was a Catholic when I joined the United States Navy,” it quotes from Kennedy (Sutcliffe, 24). It shows that Americans still treasure the idea of religious tolerance enough that they will use Kennedy as a way to imprint tolerance on the young minds of American futures.

Some of Kennedy’s legacies are of his Cold War events and his Catholicism. However, by looking at how these legacies are viewed over time, we may learn more about the American people. In terms of the Cold War, action against the spread of Communism drew approval of the Americans in the ‘60s because they sought unity and fighting against Communism was something many could unite under. But in the present, Kennedy’s accomplishments have been exaggerated or even reversed. This is an effect caused by current Americans now judging the past based on results rather than the act of simply acting. His religion was met with oppositions from some Americans but it was less in magnitude compared to the ‘20s and shows an increase in religious tolerance since then. The fact that his election as a Catholic is part of civic texts shows that Americans still appreciate religious tolerance and want to maintain it by teaching it to future generations.

WORKS CITED

• Burner, David. John F, Kennedy and a New Generation. Boston: Little Brown, 1988. 47-49. Print.
• Burns, James. John Kennedy A Political Profile. New York: Harcourt, Brace &Company, 236-252. Print
• “Presidential Approval Ratings.” Gallup. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Dec 2011. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx>
• Smith, Tom. Public Quarterly. 67. Oxford University Press, 2004. 265-275. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3521635?seq=1>
• Sutcliffe, Jane. John F, Kennedy. 24. Print.
• Tuzzleman, Alex. “From the Archive: In the Carribean Storm.” History Today. N.p., 2011. Web. 6 Dec 2011. <http://www.historytoday.com/alex-von-tunzelmann/archive-caribbean-storm>.
• Weiner, Jared. “Bay of Pigs.” Exploring the Culture of Little Havana. N.p., 14 Oct. 1998. Web. 25 Nov. 2011. <http://www.education.miami.edu/ep/littlehavana/Monuments/Virgin1/The_Virgin_Mary/Bay_of_Pigs/bay_of_pigs.html>.

In order to have a more complete view of history, it must be seen on all sides: the good, bad and ugly. If one knows the people in history more completely, he can understand why things did or didn’t occur. For example, the dictatorships in Latin America may be explained by Wilson’s interfering military action, the Soviet’s reason of initial distrust of the West is also apparent after learning of Wilson’s anti-communist beliefs/actions, and by learning of Keller’s involvement in the radical communist movement we can fully understand how she attempted to contribute to society. Heroification is a problem in the education of history because it covers up the ugly side of historical figures and sometimes produces lies to do so.

With limited time, resources and pages, there is only so much that can be taught to students these days. If the textbook were to give a complete depiction of each historical figure, there wouldn’t be any pages for anything else! Heroification simplifies matters by only showing the good side of things. As Loewen demonstrates, sometimes “heroification” includes flat-out lying. Passages of “Wilson wanted the United States to build friendship…”  or “he saw no way to avoid it…” in referring to the invasion of the Carribean have no documental proof of such sentiments (Loewen, 14-15). Another comment in a textbook on Wilson’s racial policies states that “those in favor of segregation lost support in administration”, completely the opposite of the truth (Loewen, 18). I believe that one way to solve the problems of “heroification” is to dissolve all the misguided facts it produces. If we omit the supposed reluctance of Wilson, the invasion enacted by Wilson will seem to go against his “self-determination” ideals. Of course, there is always the chance that a textbook may just omit all the invasions if they have to change their image of a reluctant Wilson, but it is such a integral part of his presidency that it is unlikely. It must be noted that there is a fine line between heroification and just praising a historical figure for their actions but the key difference is whether the “praise” has justification or proof. Anything else would simply be wasteful lies of heroification.

But there is another problem heroification. The overwhleming emphasis of the good side of historical figures will still give many the impression of near-perfect indviduals even if the lies about them are dispelled. Some merits of such simplicity are that it may induce the audience to give “consent” to the society he lives in or that it doesn’t “rock the boat” too much in the mind of our students (Loewen, 25). Solving omissions of the ugly warts on historical figures is harder than solving the pretty lies written about them. One way to be more objective of events is to acknowledge that historical figures can’t be judged based on the values of today. For example, some may view communism as unfair, corrupt and inefficient but the rise of communism was seen as a promising idea in the time of Keller who saw that the lower class were being inflcted with blindness just because of their labor status (Loewen, 12). It is convinient for some to judge the past with today’s value because of 20/20 retrospectiveness. It is harder to put onself in the time period to truly understand the context of the situation.

Heroification is indeed a problem. It simplifies the past and prevents many from gaining a more wholisitc view of their history. A simple way to combat this process is to have a more careful construction of reading material in order to prevent misleading or outright lies from sneaking in. The second step is more problematic. It requires the audience not to judge the historical figures with their own values. If the audience can do that, then the authors will be less hesitant to show the ugly sides of our so-called heroes.

In talking about the religion question with Kennedy, I decided to look at the current situation with Romney. I found an article  talking about the awareness of the religion Mitt Romney among the American people. In general, I got the impression that the average person today doesn’t consider a candidate’s religion of too much importance compared to Kennedy’s time. According to the article, “only 40% of the polled could  correctly identify Mitt Romney as a Mormon”. Some (6%) even mislabled him as Protestant or Catholic. Also, when asked of the pervieved difference in religion of them and Romney, more than half of the respondents indicate either that they aren’t sure of Romney’s religion or don’t consider his religion that much different (Jones). It is hard to believe that Kennedy being a Catholic was such a big deal 50 years ago! But after looking at the big picture, it may not be so hard to understand.

When the survey asked respondents of their knowledge of Mormonism in general, 82% reported that they knew little to nothing about Mormonism. However, when asked about the percieved difference of Mormonism, “more than 7-in-10 say the religious beliefs of Mormons are somewhat or very different from their own”. So how can we reconcile this? We have Mormonism, a religion that is considered unknown but different by many Americans. And we have Mitt Romney, a Mormon candidate for which over half of the respondents couldn’t identify as Mormon nor be consistent with their difference on his percieved religious views.

 One possible explanation is that Americans don’t pay much attention as they used to for the religion of their statesmen. This is a secular state, after all; the subject of religion, in theory, shouldn’t be a concern. Yet at the same time, it is undeniable that Christianity is a part of the identity Americans associate themselves with. Is religion an obsolete unifier in America? It is possible that as a nation progresses, old traditions that united us together are no longer needed and fade away. However, that wouldn’t explain how historical figures like George Washington are still famous.

Another explanation might be the sensationalism theory about what gets Americans into politics. With Kennedy being the first Catholic President, it might no longer very interesting for even a Mormon to run in an election. Another reason stated in aticle of the Washington Post suggests that in 2012, it has been 4 years since his 2008 campaign and so the Mormon issue has been lessened in impact and interest(Blake). Maybe the only thing to catch America’s attention is if the next runner has a religion outside the realm of Christianity (who knows Judiasm or even atheism?)

Works Cited

Jones, Robert. “Mitt Romney and his Mormon Faith.” Public Religion Research Institute. N.p., 10/10/2011. Web. 15 Nov 2011. <http://publicreligion.org/newsroom/fact-sheets/fact-sheet-romney-mormon-faith/>.

Blake, Aaron. “Why Mitt Romney’s ‘Mormon Question’ doesn’t matter (as much) in 2012.” The FIX. The Washington Post, 10/10/2011. Web. 15 Nov 2011. <why-mitt-romneys-mormon-question-doesnt-matter-as-much-in-2012>.

Last Sunday, the whole group came together to discuss our project. After some consideration, I agree that my book doesn’t demonstrate the legendary image of Kennedy as well as Laura’s book. It focuses on the legend of the assasination rather than Kennedy himself. We came to agreement on some of the primary topics possible for the discussion and plan to send our materials together this week. Though I doubt we will go over our page limit, I think the material is dense with information. I think that one more meeting might be required after reading all relevant materials to finalize the discussion structure.

This week, I want to discuss a topic I thought about when I was suggested a book by Professor McDaniel. He mentioned that Stephen King had just released a new book “11/22/63” about a time travler who went back in time to stop his assasination. After looking into the reviews of the book, I got a general summary: The protagonist Jake goes back in time to stop Oswald taking a shot at Kennedy. He succeeds but it makes the future worse off and he has to stop himself from changing history.(Janet, 1) This got me to thinking about the role of death in legendary Americans. Sometimes, it is better for their image when they die in the circumstances that they did. One example of this sort of alternate universe came to my mind: Abraham Lincoln’s assasination couldn’t have come at a better time for his image. He had just won the Civil War but was going have to deal with Congress over his use of executive war powers. But Booth beat Congress to the punch and so we only remember Lincoln as the victor of the Civil War and not the invetiable conflict with Congress that never occured.(Hyman, 39-47) In “11/22/63”, a similar case is presented but this time, the killing of Kennedy prevented a nuclear holocaust apparently (Janet, 1).

However, death doesn’t just prevent Americans from ruining their own images. It can also obscure their images. This could be said of the death Davy Crockett. There were no surviving defenders of the Alamo and few sources from the Mexican army detail his death. Thus, obscurity allows Americans to purport the theory that he went down fighting. 

 But even when the circumstances of death are blatantly obvious, they can add sympathy or even more respect onto their image. Elvis died alone with alcohol and drugs which highlighted the sympathy his fans have for him. Harriet Tubman died penniless and uncompensated according to some of her supporters. John Brown’s death circumstances was his biggest accomplishment as he became a martyr for the anti-slavery cause.

So maybe the key to being a legend isn’t just about how it starts or what it contains but also when or how to just end it. An abrupt ending might stop it from getting sour. An open-ended one allows the audience to utilize their imagination and make the legend even larger. But there are some clear-cut endings that add even more respect to the character. In this case, I believe Kennedy’s death is a combination of the first two. There was some domestic unrest already of the Civil rights movements and Kennedy didn’t want to be too vocal for the fear of alienating southern support (John,1). Also, the “mysterious” conspiracies surrounding Kennedy’s death allows the possibility that Kennedy was a big enough threat to oragnized crime/Soviet Union/CIA that he had to be taken out instead of him being the target of a small-time Soviet supporter.

Works cited

Hyman, Harold. Papers of Lincoln Association. 5. Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 39-47. Web. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20148826.

Janet , Maslin. Review: In Stephen King’s ’11/22/63,’ a time traveler tries to save JFK in Dallas. New York: New York Times, 2011. Web. http://www.mercurynews.com/books/ci_19282206.

John Kennedy and Civil Rights. UK: History learning Site, 2011. Web. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/john_kennedy_and_civil_rights.htm.

Elvis Presely was famous even as a young performer, sending hundreds of girls screaming with his swinging hips and other “erotic” gestures. So why is it that the current fans prefer the later, fat, and sweaty Elvis over the younger one? And why do they view him as “wholesome”, patriotic and pious? It is probably because the image of later Elvis was more flexible in the eyes of his fans. His life could be related to what was going on in their own life. And if they saw a bit of themselves in Elvis, they wanted Elvis to be of the highest moral pedigree because they probably thought Elvis was a part of them also.

The younger Elvis was a teen sensation fascinated with the new way he expressed himself: his body. He was the one who introduced such expressive forms into music which helped him become famous (Doss, 5). But if his movements attracted the squeals of the younger generation, they ceartainly got howls of indignation from the older and conservative ones. (Rosenbaum, 5-6) But perhaps this was the start of it all. The young Elvis was to draw attention to him and the elder one was to hold it there. It had been said that many Elvis fans hold him almost to an equal status of a family member and that the fans knew “he was just looking and singing just to them”.(Doss, 6) Now that Elvis had ingrained himself so deeply into the fans, it was time for older Elvis to come in. If we were to divide Young and Elder Elvis with his time in the army, we can see how  Elvis the Elder’s life slowly turned downhill into a tragedy many could relate (Rosenbaum,3). John Lennon even remarks “Elvis dies the day he went into the Army (Doss, 7). In Elder Elvis’s life, Elvis’s mother died and his marriage went sour. Also, the limited freedom he had due to his fandom was believed to be constrciting him to a life of alcohol and drugs (Doss, 8). But even as he was going through so much pain, most fans remember the later Elvis offering spiritual healing for their lives through his songs and his tragic story that captured the hearts of his fans. Perhaps, it is not too much of a stretch for Elvis to be seen as a sort of Jesus in his fans’ eyes; offering spiriutal healing to others at the cost of oneself. (Rosenbaum, 3)
If the fans saw Elvis as their hearthrob, family member, Jesus, or some combination of the three, it only makes sense that they would attribute the qualities they desired onto him. For example, many Americans said that he was patriotic because he served in the American army as a tank driver. (Doss, 7) Also, some people for integration hypothesized he greatly respected the African music he learned from but the opponents of integration could easily refer to Elvis’ supposed slur against Africans to promote their message. In general, Elvis is a flexible image that many use in order to reflect what we value.(Bertrand, 23) It isn’t just that many people see Elvis as wholesome, patriotic and as a family-man; it is also that these values are favorable in the prevalent eyes of the general population and therefore these views of Elvis are most likely to be prevalent among his fans.

Since our project soon coming to accumulation, I have started to look more carefully at the heart of the subject of the project. I see the Legendary American History Course as a study of how the Americans see their legendary figures. Since we have a page limit between 50 and 80 and I’m sure my partners will also have their plethora of information to contribute, I’ll focus primarily on the topics dealing with the people’s view on Kennedy.

I have about seventeen pages from a book that gives a brief overview of Kennedy’s religion: Catholicism. It discusses the social conditions of his candidacy especially when the Irish Catholic immigrants have begun to rise in social status and gaining seats of power. It also briefly describes the “kind” of Catholic that Kennedy was. The last part is interesting because it compares the ’60s to the ’20s, the last time a Catholic ran for President. From all this information, we can discuss the various changes in views of America and even today. For example, Kennedy crossed all barriers of his Irish immigrant roots, save for the religious barrier, including: education, wealth, and power. Does this imply that this is all America cares for and that religion has taken a secondary priority in their view? Also, though America is a secular state, there are still hints of Christianity rooted in it. One example is the “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance; a short but obvious tie to a religion. Does this imply that the Americans will only “accept” Christian Presidents? Do you think that one day we will slowly move towards Jewish, Atheists or even Muslim Presidents?

I also have 5 pages I would like to share about the Cuban Missile Crises. It briefly talks of Kennedy’s approval rating rising after the Crises along with polls and numbers about the Crises. We see the exaggeration of the crises along with the numbers to prove it. But we must acknowledge that the polls can be flawed and bias. We can discuss the legitimacy of the polls along with any reason why a person would want to skew the data. Another question to ask is: if there is any situation like this and what they hold in common? Is the unity of the American people positively correlated with how we view the President? As Laura pointed out in one of her posts, Kennedy’s approval rating rose after Bay of Pigs, an American failure. Also, after the 9/11 attacks, George W Bush’s ratings also went up. This brings up an interesting question of whether the legendary figures promote the unity of a nation or if it is the opposite that is true.

Works Cited

Burns, James. John Kennedy A Political Profile. New York: Harcourt,Brace &Company, 236-252. Print.

Simkin, John. “Cuban Missile Crises.” n. pag. Spartacus Educational. Web. 1 Nov 2011. <http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDcubanmissile.htm>.

Last week, this blog reported on the years concentrating around the Cuban Missile Crises. The source from the Public Quarterly also goes into more details of the days around the pinnacle of the crises. Although there are many quotes from citizens who feared they may never see daylight again, the voices of those who didn’t fear nuclear disaster are rarely heard. It can be said that their voice was “silenced” through history.

One college  student of 1962 recalls that on the night of Kennedy’s address his parents asked him sleep  in their room for the fear that it may be their last night together. (Smith,271) Americans had every right to be worried. Kennedy was very specific in his description of the threat, stating the problem as “ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead…capable of striking Washington DC, the Panama Canal, Mexico City, or any other city in the southeastern part of the United States, in Central America, or in the Caribbean area.” He also mentioned the uncertainty of the outcome but made clear that the worst case scenario: nuclear war “in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth”. (Smith, 272)

But the NORC Illinois study suggests that the anxiety was not as widespread as thought. During the crises only 36% of those surveyed recalled their week different from the previous one and less than 1/3 of those people cited Cuba as the cause. When asked directly if they had changed their routine because of the Cuba situation, only 11.5% confirmed it and only 4% engaged in any safety or survival activities! Of all the concerns concerning Cuba, nuclear war wasn’t the big fear during the crises either. According to the polls, of the Cuban-war fears, the largest fear was “the general situation”(81%), followed by the fear of having someone go to war(15%) and then survival if war were to break out (6%).(Smith, 272)

Other than the finding direct opinion on the missile crises. The study also surveyed America’s mindset too during the crises. It seemed that the general mood of the public didn’t change much during the crises. One interesting fact is that thoughts of death decreased from 37% in the spring of ’62 to 29% during the crises. A survey of happiness shows an increase of about 5% from the spring. Reported stress and anxiety showed little change during the crises also.(Smith, 273)

These days, most people think of the Cuban missile crises as a scene where the world held its breath counting down the next nuclear war. Well, if that was the case, America certainly didn’t show it. The overall numbers from the study concludes that while interest in Cuba did increase during the crises, there was no general panic or even anxiety about the situation. This could be understood if the public didn’t know the situation. But the address by Kennedy removes that possibility. It can be understood then that the sense of impending nuclear war was overplayed through time to create a legendary event of American history. But is that all? The Cuban Missile Crises could also be one of those “legendary stories” of “legendary Americans”. Just like Washington cutting down the cherry tree, or Davy Crockett going down swinging at the Alamo, the image of Kennedy tenaciously working for peace dangling on a thread is similar to the stuff of legends.  Next time, this blog will study the rhetoric affects of Kennedy’s speech or look into how Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crises is seen over time. (For example: Washington’s farewell Address during the Civil War, Sacagawea used for the Women’s suffrage movement, or John Henry’s symbol for the Communists.)

Works Cited

Smith, Tom. Public Quarterly. 67. Oxford University Press, 2004. 265-275. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3521635?seq=1>

Do outlaws of the 20^th century like Bonny and Clyde match the description of the social bandit in the 19^th century? While it does seem that both categories seem to be similar in their disregard to law and fame, evidence has shown that as times have changed, so have the bandits. Their differences are numerous but the most striking are the motive or “manliness” they promote, their support groups, and the circumstance of which their times occurred.

In the 19^th century, the core belief of the celebrated social bandits was their masculine characteristics. ”The portrait of the outlaw as a strong man righting his own wrongs and taking his own revenge had a deep appeal to a society concerned with the place of masculinity….in a newly industrialized and seemingly effete order.” (White, 406) It is said that those who romanticized these characteristics admired their toughness, loyalty, bravery, honor and daring among other qualities. (White, 407) These traits are similar to those Davy Crockett showed in the Disney version where he disobeys his superior’s orders to do the “right” thing. But by the time of the 20^th century bandits, the values of masculinity had changed. If the social bandits promoted values, then the outlaws promoted material gain. Gorn comments: “Dillenger’s wild year was a response….to ideals of masculinity….during the Great Depression.” Here, masculinity meant reclaiming all that had been lost during the Great Depression. Women, cars, and clothes were all Dillenger sought for. (Gorn, 175) Bonnie and Clyde also didn’t bother to call their crimes a way to advance social causes like revenge or righteousness. They simply went after the “small stakes”. Clyde was described as a “careless and remorseless killer”. Cott, 222)

White also describes the bandits as having 3 kinds of supporters. The kin supporters, the active supporters, and the passive supporters.(White, 389) Certainly, both the social bandits and outlaws had passive supporters but it is the first two in which they differ. Family is only briefly mentioned in how Clyde’s brother was in the gang (Cott, 222) and how Dillenger would receive support from his father to exonerate his son (Gorn, 158). But it is the 19^th century gangs in which family which fed, hid and even warned the gang. One example of close kin is that three prominent gangs were led by brothers: the James, the Younger, and the Dalton (White ,390). The social bandits also had the active community support that the 20^th century outlaws lacked. Social Bandits like the James gang were so familiar with locals in the counties that it was thought that “a local jury would never convict them”. (White, 390) Meanwhile, the later outlaws were hunted down constantly. Dillinger was being considered as a target for bounty hunters (Gorn, 166) and Bonny and Clyde were tracked and shot down by a posse.

Another difference was which the circumstances the criminals did their actions. In the mid-19^th century where the social bandits emerged, the division across the nation was wide after having just finished the Civil War. Locals resented the officers with the north and vice versa. Complicated by frantic land-stakers, the tension in community over land and property reached a fever where violence was accepted as a means of proving oneself. In this case, White constantly explains that the line defining vigilante, sooner and bandit were vague (White, 397-399). The actions carried out by the gangs might not have seemed out of place. By the 1930s though, the rule of the government had been established and was assimilating power to fight outlaw crime (Gorn, 161-162). There was order and these bandits were a blatant departure from it. Dillinger, Bonnie, and Clyde were all described as living a life that broke free from the norm of others at the time which contributed to their fame as most of their fans lived vicariously through them (Gorn, 175-176).

The Social Bandits of the outlaws of the 20^th century did have some similarities such as their fame and disregard for the law. However, they weren’t the same type of criminal.  Social Bandits lived by their own honor code while outlaws sought wealth and material goods. And while both had passive supporters, the social bandits had much more local and familial support than the outlaws. Furthermore, the violence of the social bandits weren’t uncommon at their time while the outlaws like Dillinger drew attention particularly because of their extremity at the time.

One of the greatest accomplishments many attribute to Kennedy is the Cuban Missile Crises. But although many historians have tracked down the movements and thoughts of the leaders during that tense time, there haven’t been much detailing the thoughts of the American citizens that is until now. An online excerpt by Tom Smith discuses the impact of the Cuban Missile Crises on the people during the time it has occurred. It shows that many citizens didn’t fear an upcoming nuclear war as much as we thought and alsothat the importance of foreign diplomacy rose in the eyes of Americans.

When one hears of the Cuban Missile Crises, they imagine that the US citizens were leaving in constant fear of a nuclear war at the time. But is this really the case? A poll shows that in the September of 1962, 24 percent considered Cuba our top national threat. But even after Kennedy’s public national address, the concern only rose to 25%. Concern of Cuba would later peak at 31% and remain above 20% through Mach of 1963, but by September of 1963, the results would have dropped to 3%!(Smith, 266-267) So did the people really fear the threat of a nuclear war? And if they did, why were they so close to be unconcerned about the nation that nearly started it? In fact in April of 1963,” only 5% expected a world war within the next year”, the lowest number in the last two decades.(Smith,268) Another impact on Americans was their views on foreign affairs. Their view of foreign affairs as a concern to the US rose from 35% to 72% from August to November of 1962. That is only second to Pearl Harbor’s impact (81%).(Smith, 267)

Another view of the Cuban Missile Crises was that America had “won” it. (In actuality, we compromised with the removal of our missiles in Turkey.) In a survey of December 1962, 45% of the poll reported that expected to see a decrease in Soviet power the next year. Maybe it was this boost in national image that helped Kennedy’s image also. The Cuban Missile Crises pushed Kennedy’s approval rating from 61% to 74% between mid-October and November. Foreign affairs also shifted in the Cuban Missile Crises. “In the summer of 1962, few people mentioned good or bad things they had heard people saying about President Kennedy.” Only 9 percent saw him successful in foreign diplomacy while 8 percent disapproved in his actions. When the Cuban Missile Crises was going on, 59 percent of pollster mentioned Kennedy’s success in foreign actions while 14 percent disapproved.(Smith, 269-270) We can see how the Cuban Missile Crises set foreign policies as such a high standard to judge Presidents.

The Cuban Missile Crises is, according to a poll, the most remembered fact about Kennedy’s term and was thought in 1988 to be in the top 6 uses of America’s military might.(Smith, 275) This source reveals that the fear of nuclear war may have been overstated for dramatic purposes. This online article contains the results of the original polls in the appendix and polls themselves which is arguably the best way to get the public’s opinion on something.

 This blog talked about the general view of the public over the course of years 1962-1963 in general this week. Next week it may go into even more detail about the weeks during the Missile crises and the daily lives of citizens then. Or, it may investigate the sources the article used to dig deeper into the subject. Either way, this source is a very valuable resource and is recommendable it for reading s of Kennedy. It closely examines a legendary event in his term and is terse with lots of cited information and statistical proof in the appendix.

Works Cited

Smith, Tom. Public Quarterly. 67. Oxford University Press, 2004. 265-275. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3521635?seq=1>.

Disney is a company who creates films and movies targeted to children. Therefore, most of the settings are fictional such as Sleeping Beauty or Cinderella. Even their historical films are based on warped realities. Such examples are seen in Pocahontas and Davy Crockett. Does the setting in the film of John Henry also fit into this category?  Unfortunately, the freedom portrayed in the film was non-existent. All was not well for the freedmen even after the Emancipation Proclamation. The life of a freedman in the South was harsh in work, society and in the courts as well.

The people of Disney seem to have made the same mindsets as most of the academic song collectors. Their movie promoted and celebrated the life and work of John Henry. They incorporated an upbeat song in time to the hammering, supposedly to inspire the other workers.  But in reality, Nelson notes that the true meanings of the folk songs of John Henry were depressing and bitter. “They cursed hard work, bosses, and unfaithful women. They predicted pain and death.” (Nelson, 30) Disney also warped the working conditions of the railroad by portraying a sort of idyllic, peaceful occupation free from danger.  Henry Grady, a former worker of the railroad, recalls” mangled bodies…and the use of state convicts to raise the road beds” and all for the lowest paying job of railroad work! (Nelson, 25-26)

 If the movie could reverse our view of folk songs and of the working conditions, then what does that say of their portrayal of Post-Civil War South?  We can first examine the interactions between the whites and blacks of society during this time. Many local whites resented the influx of blacks moving in. In City Point, an editor of the “Petersburg Daily Index” expresses anger of the locals along with a derogatory name of “Cuffee” for the newcomers (Nelson,44).  In Prince George County, tensions would sometimes come to a peak and a drunken brawl would break out in Wiseman’s grocery (Nelson,46). But in the larger scope, the newly freedman were in a precarious position. In 1865, “Virginia legislature….defined crime somewhat differently than what we do today. Among the objectionable crimes were ‘vagrancy’ and ‘air of satisfaction’.” Though, the laws were written as race neutral, the enforcement only seemed to follow the freedman. And society slowly regressed back a state similar to slavery. “Men and women without labor contracts could be… auctioned off to the highest bidder for three months of labor. Those who tried to escape….could be bound with a ball and chain.” Virginia also formed a “special” police that had the power to go around and arrest “rouges”, as the Petersburg paper called them. These laws would be called “black codes” by critics (Nelson, 52-53).  Adding uncertainty to an arrested black person was the courts. In 1866, the case Ex Parte Milligan ruled that no military courts could operate when civil courts also operated. This brought many blacks out of the jurisdiction of the Freedmen’s Bureau and into the mercy of the black codes. However, 6 days later, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 made it a crime for a person to receive different penalties for a crime based on race. Bureau officials could protest the ruling of the civil courts and bring it to the district courts (Nelson, 54-55). Freedmen in the South were not in a good situation. If they abided by the law, they would certainly be abused by it. But if they broke it, they would have to gamble their fates to how much the court thought it could get away with along the Bureau official’s disposition.

From a life of constant slavery to a life of uncertainty, the freedman were not truly free with the rights of citizen was supposed to be. Disney’s John Henry may have said “never again” to slavery  but it seems he wouldn’t have had a choice at the time. It might be said that Disney did not mean to convey historical accuracy but rather the moral of determination and hard work. But in order to acknowledge how far the country has come and to preserve the knowledge of the past to be used in the future, we must acknowledge history in truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Certainly, the Emancipation Proclamation officially ended the institution of slavery in the South but it can not be said that it freed the slaves.