After reading Laura’s post, I think that John F. Kennedy is a strong candidate for our project this semester. After reading some about his life and political career on the American National Biography website (www.ang.org), I think there are several areas of his life and aspects of his career that could be made into a good project. First, we could talk about his disease and his desire to hide it from the public. He sacrificed his reputability to other Congressman to keep his disease a secret from the public. He was known as “a playboy, the son of a frivolous rich man” (American National Biography). We could discuss reasons why he chose to be perceived this way instead of obtaining public sympathy. Perhaps he chose to look lazy over weak.

I’m also interested to look in to the story about JFK’s experience in the Navy when his ship was sunk. He reportedly saved a fellow survivor by “gripping his life jacket in his teeth” (also American National Biography). We could ask why the ANB chose to use this story in his biography. It certainly boosts his image. Is this the most important aspect of his military career? Or was the story merely chosen to boost his public image?

Then there’s the elephant in the room: JFK was Catholic. We could discuss why his Catholicism was such an important issue and why people saw it an obstacle on the path to his presidency. In America, we pride ourselves on religious freedom. So why was Kennedy’s association with Catholicism so important?

Another path of discussion could be America’s fascination with JFK’s personal life, from the time he was in office until now. We could ask why he is sometimes remembered more about things he did outside the oval office. Does this insinuate American political apathy? Or simply the desire for popular culture from a high ranking official? Did the media play a role in accentuating his personal life?

John F. Kennedy is a good choice, not only because he is a legend, but because there is much to be discussed about his life, his career, and how he is remembered.

Question 2

When trying to decide the cause of the “Crockett Craze” of the 1950s, it is important to consider why Crockett was chosen. Walt Disney had some reservations at first, as Roberts and Olson point out. The Davy Crockett television series was to be the first of many about legendary figures in American history, but they needed somewhere to start. He was chosen because his life was short, interesting, had really specific high points, and fairly vague in-between time. This turned out to be the perfect combination for the series. So, in part, the Crockett Craze is a result of the fact that Disney picked him for the series. Had he not been picked to be a television hero, he obviously wouldn’t be as famous as he is now.

There’s more to the story though. I think that the Crockett Craze is a result of options B and D from the prompt. I think that Disney picked Crockett because he could work with the plot of his life. Crockett stood for wholesomeness, trustworthiness, and reliability, all qualities of a Disney and American hero. But it’s also important to note that Americans (and lots of other cultures worldwide) will never stop wanting escapism through TV, movies, and other popular culture. Without this demand for entertainment, Disney would never have achieved the same level of success with the Crockett series. It can be said then, that the people asked for a hero, and Disney delivered one. While Crockett certainly did live an interesting and respectably heroic life, so did many other people that don’t have the level of fame as Crockett. His status as a hero is undisputed, but his fame is an effect of the American desire to remember him. With someone as successful as Walt Disney to project his image, his fame was boosted infinitely. The thirst of the masses for someone to idolize through escapist entertainment is insatiable, thus providing an outlet for many more Americans to move from being a hero to becoming legendary.

This week, our group decided to each pick a different legendary American to check out. I picked Benjamin Franklin, because to me, he is one of the most interesting men in American history. According to www.ushistory.org, Franklin is one of the few legends whose reputation is undisputed. He basically didn’t have any haters. I loved reading his resume on his biography on the same website. He was so versatile. His work included “Printer, Publisher, Scientist. Clerk of the Pennsylvania Assembly, 1736; Founded the Library Company of Philadelphia, 1731; Postmaster of Philadelphia, 1737-1753; Member of Pennsylvania Assembly, 1751-1764; Deputy Postmaster general of the British colonies in America, 1753; Founded Academy of Sciences of Philadelphia, 1753; Agent to Europe for Pennsylvania, 1757-1762, for Pennsylvania, Georgia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, 1764-1775; Elected to Continental Congress, 1775; Testified before Parliament concerning the Stamp Act, 1776; Postmaster General of the united colonies, 1775; Commissioner to the French Court, 1776; Minister plenipotentiary to the French Court, 1779; Negotiator in and Member of the Treaties with Gr.-Britain, 1781-1783; Member of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, President of Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery, 1785; Senior member of the Constitutional Convention, 1787”.

I don’t even know what some of these things are. It’s impressive for a guy who only went to school until the age of 10. He was well-liked almost everywhere he went. So well-liked that he is rumored to have several illegitimate children. He was basically a rock star of his time. He is a good candidate for studying for this semester because we wouldn’t run out of information about him. He lived to be quite old and did many, many things in his life. It would be interesting to study someone who was undisputably popular, both while he was living and continutes to be after his death. Perhaps we could dig deeper, and see if he lives up to his reputation? It’s something to consider.

According to Furstenburg, the fundamental problem with U.S. nationalism in its early stages dealt with consent. From the beginning, the United States set up a government that claimed to rule “under the consent of the governed”. Furstenburg raises an important question: How does one get consent? To say that a government rules completely by the consent of the governed is idealistic; surely not everyone will agree on how the system should work. Another point to be considered is that this nation was founded on the principle of NOT giving consent to the government, as they proved through the Declaration of Independence and during the Revolutionary War. The Declaration stated all that was wrong and why they should no longer be a part of the British Empire, and the Revolutionary War proved they were willing to defend their beliefs on how a country should be run through means of violence and war. How, then, can these same people be expected to give consent to a new government? If they find it to be unsatisfactory, they will stop giving consent, an action that is encouraged by the Declaration of Independence.

Confusion and double standards posed a threat to U.S. nationalism during this time period. As a solution to this problem, George Washington was put up on a pedestal—the father of the United States of America. As the face of American nationalism, Washington provided someone to identify with. Furstenburg also cites three important documents associated with Washington and nationalism, the first two are obvious, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The final is the one most closely associated with Washington: his Farewell Address. In this address, he did so much more than announce his retirement. He urged the country to settle its regional differences for the sake of the country as a whole.  As a national hero and a truly legendary American, even while he was still alive, he had the ability to make people listen and the prestige that made his opinion widely respected. In uncertain times, he was the father that the citizens looked up to. As his “children”, Americans had a restored sense of nationalism.