This week I found a children’s book entitled John F. Kennedy, by Jane Sutcliffe, to add a different perspective to our group project. I would guess the book is aimed at about 2nd-3rd graders, judging by the simplicity of the language. Many of the details of JFK’s life are glossed over and idealized to avoid overcomplicating things for kids, as I expected. For example, the book gives him primary credit for the civil rights movement by citing one unnamed civil rights leader as saying that “[he] made the difference. [He] gave us [his] blessing.” Similarly, the final epilogue lists his accomplishments and ignores his failings–he “made the country safer,” “set the nation on a new road to equal rights,” and “encouraged Americans to aim for the Moon.” Despite these exaggerations, there are, I was surprised to find, facets that weren’t idealized: the book acknowledged that he was a poor student, was never meant to be a politician in his parents’ eyes, and admitted that “not everyone was happy with the job that Jack was doing.” I found this more revisionist than other examples of children’s literature, such as Weems’s products. Most of the information I have found on JFK, in fact, has been fairly well rounded. It made me wonder if historical literature can be be so one-sided in the modern world, with such a wealth of information and a PC culture of immediate, worldwide critique. How will this affect the way we view recent heroes, like JFK, versus older heroes, like Washington?
I also noticed a surprisingly coincidental parallel between the Washington legends and the JFK legends as portrayed in the book. Sutcliffe tells how Kennedy, in his rascally younger days, planned to prank his school’s dance dance by putting horse manure on the dancefloor. The principal caught wind of the plan and contacted Kennedy’s father, but rather than reprimand his son for the mischief, Joseph Kennedy Sr commended him for his leadership and ingenuity in masterminding the prank. Obviously, this corresponds to the cherry tree story, in which a young Washington commits a reprehensible act yet even so displays enough good qualities to be let off the hook. I think this type of story reoccurs because it allows the legend-makers to present a hero who is relatably, seemingly imperfect yet still a thoroughly good person.
Apart from the book, this yesterday I also saw part of the local news discussing the upcoming presidential elections while at my grandparents’ house. The clip caught my eye because it showed a Southern religious official (whose name I didn’t catch) telling his congregation not to vote for Republican candidate Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, and “Mormonism is a cult.” This immediately reminded me of the anti-Catholic fears that preceded JFK’s election. For next week I want to look deeper into these parallels and what they say about how our national views have shifted (or not) over time.