When I learned Texas history as an elementary school kid, I was taught that the Revolution was begun due to the tyranny and brutality of the Mexicans.  My teachers refrained from any outward racism, but made it clear that there was a ‘right’ side in the war that had prevailed.  Due to this portrayal, I was somewhat surprised when I read this week that the “prevailing view of the conflict since the mid-nineteenth century” was that the was a result of “anglo-racism.”  I felt almost as it I had been taught the reverse: I had never thought of the conflict as an innately racial one, but the racism had been implied in my learning with the narrow, cut-and dry representation of good vs. evil that had been portrayed in my school.

With this contemporary attitude as a reference, I can see why some believe that racism was an instigating factor in the Texas Revolution.   The Ehrenberg translation of Sam Houston’s speech certainly strengthens the case, and the belief that it was accepted at the time suggests that Houston’s racial reasoning would not have been unique.   The vilification to some degree of the Texans makes sense from a contemporary reader’s perspective: they were breaking the law, occasionally to smuggle slaves and, showed little respect for the country that actually owned the land.  I do, however, like Crisp’s argument that the theory of Anglo-racism is ‘simplistic,’ since I think simplification is the worst tendency of historians.  The theory worked because it is more defensible then the “doctrine of race,” but as Crisp argues, still uses the “same old, discredited rationale.”

I found Crisp’s argument for racism being the consequence, not the cause of the war to be very convincing, particularly his claim that many Mexicans such as Juan Seguin actually fought with the rebels, thus blurring racial lines.   Seguin’s life story, from rebel/volunteer/hero in Texas to a refugee in the land he fought for after the war makes him a perfect case study for the Crisp’s argument that racism followed the war.  Other factors, such as “disagreements over states’ rights and autonomy, exorbitant tariffs and the haphazard suppression of smuggling, inefficient and arbitrary administration of the laws, and weakness and corruption of the army” are all plausible causes, and all (including racism to some degree) probably played a part in increasing tensions.  However, as Crisp’s disproving of Ehrenberg’s translation of Houston’s speech demonstrates, there is often much more than the superficial to any story, and “Anglo racism” was not the core explanation of the Texas Revolution.

I agree with Gretchen’s post, which basically said what I meant to say in my first post and in this post, but she said it much better than I did.  I think even if JFK isn’t necessarily the most interesting figure in terms of achievements, we could find a lot of points to bring up about the nature of legends and legendary figures, which is the most important for this project.  This week I did some very superficial research on several of the other candidates such as Theodore Roosevelt and Amelia Earhart, but I don’t think they have as many talking points as JFK.  The myths she mentioned would work well for discussion, and I found some strongly conflicting love/hate opinions of him, which would be interesting to bring up in class.  I think he would be a good choice for our project.

         I believe that all art is influenced by the worldview of its creator, even if the work is not meant to be a direct projection of such a worldview.  Therefore, the movie Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier cannot be viewed as discrete from Walt Disney’s perspective.  According to Roberts and Olsen, this perspective was politically conservative, with an emphasis on the past and stability.  Most pertinently to the subject of legendary Americans, he promoted the preservation of heroes who represented liberty and the rights of man as part of America’s “sacred heritage.”  Success, he believed, was achieved not through bureaucracy or unions, but through hard work, which could allow even the disadvantaged to rise up if they had the ambition and drive to do so.  Those who did not would fail, regardless of whatever egalitarian ideologies the communists professed.  In business, he adopted a paternal, old-fashioned, and non-regulated style of dealing with employees, which was reflected in his belief that where governments were fallible individuals could create prosperity themselves.  These convictions were manifested in the architecture of Disneyland, which was modeled at fraction of average sizes to create a world that, like the past, was “knowable, smaller, more intimate, neat, and safe.”

I think the actual nature of Disney’s worldview was determined primarily from his upbringing and other factors that do not factor into the Crockett craze or those times.  The examples given in the book, rather than actually forming his views, accentuated and reinforced them.  For instance, the bitter workers’ strike against Disney in 1941 did not give him the idea that unions were dangerous, but instead highlighted it as an issue for America that should be addressed.Similarly, the Nazi-Soviet pact did not ‘form’ Disney’s opinion that communism was morally questionable, but cemented it as a malignant practice that should be curtailed in America.  The zeitgeist of the era also contributed in shaping Disney’s worldview: during the Cold War, a need for unifying nationalism and a strong international persona was widely felt, spurring Disney and other manufacturers of entertainment to create works that would foster patriotism and faith in the nation.

As previously mentioned, I think that Davy Crockett can only be seen as an extension of Disney’s worldview.  As Robert and Olsen indicate, his perspective can be seen in the case of Red Stick’s assertion that white governments lie and Crockett’s claim that he, the man, does not, just as Disney put more faith in the individual than in the bureaucracy.  This individualism balanced with national ties was exhibited in Crockett’s treatment of the volunteer army, wherein he arrived and fought hard with everybody else but left when he saw fit regardless of what the officials told him.  In physically besting the Indians Crockett was a role model for the United States—striving for peace but not afraid to use his position of superior strength to push others in the desired direction.  Crockett also fostered patriotism among viewers by being one of the “great men” whose memory would keep America great, according to Disney.  His choice to join the Texas Revolution was a historical extension of the Truman Doctrine, which was dividing America at the time.  Disney’s belief in his own paternal management style is also championed in Crockett, with his honest, familiar colloquialisms, friendly attitude, and desire to be with his family. In this way, Crocket resembles Furstenberg’s view of Washington as a remedy for common fears of the time, as the nation was being fractured by labor issues and McCarthyism. The severity of the country’s fracturing is evidenced by the fact that just a year after the film was released, the Vietnam War began, which did create division in the population despite having shared heroes like Crockett.  Even the mere fact that the movie’s subject was a historical figure, and an idealized one at that, betrays Disney’s belief that the past was a place of greater heroes and glory than the present.  Thus, the Davy Crockett video can be said not to be influenced by Disney, but to be almost completely crafted according to his perspective.

I researched John F Kennedy this week as a candidate for out group project.  I looked primarily at websites, and I found several different points of view, which could be interesting to explore in class.  Some people see him as a villain masquerading as a martyr, and some see him as a hero in life and death.  Kennedy also has several aspects that would be interesting with reference to the key questions we have to answer.  His reputation is influenced by his early death, militarism, and scandalous personal life.  This final aspect is interesting because it asks us to evaluate whether deeds or a personal life is important when determining how history views a person and how it affercts their status as legendary.  He is prominent enough in history for us to find plenty of information about him, and I think he would be a good choice for us to study.