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.