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.