Historical Views In Popular Media

Keith Benson Curriculum Analysis Dr. Ben Justice 2.21.2008

The questions for response have particular relevancy within these past two days. Yesterday, the “straight-talker”, “maverick”, “American hero” and actual Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, has come under attack for possible infidelity with, and presumably granting special favors for, a young female lobbyist. In two days, the incorruptible, “man of impeccable character” and media darling has suddenly, surprisingly, and disappointingly become flawed like the rest of us. The questions and the readings assigned for this week’s response correlates directly with the reason the public is so shocked that flesh-and –blood, mortal John McCain may have committed a few improprieties in his past. Herbert Kohl, in the “The Story of Rosa Parks”, and Past Imperfect’s article, “Gone with the Wind”, specifically discusses how the public comes to view historical events, and its actors. Kohl narrates how the sanitized version of Rosa Parks’ story, as a shrinking violet victimized by the segregationist south, still remains the popular version recalled by Americans and taught within American history classes. This characterization of Rosa Parks was not only grossly simplistic, but also was borderline untrue. Kohl explains Rosa Parks was long known as a rabble-rouser in attempts to voice her, and the African American community’s seemingly unanimous, opposition against segregation. Also, Parks, and others, on numerous occasions performed the act she became known for prior to 1955. Another part of her story that remains largely untold is that Parks herself hated the way she has

come to be represented; as a helpless, feeble old woman. (Interestingly enough, it was the patriarchs of the Civil Rights movement who initiated, and promoted that image of Rosa Parks so as to generate sympathy.) Past Imperfect’s articles of “Gone with the Wind”, and “Interview with Oliver Stone”, seeks to describe how successful movies seem to serve as valid historical references within the mind and memory of viewers. In “Gone with the Wind”, because, the movie was so popular and hit a chord with America’s romanticized interpretation of Southern Hospitality, complete with virtuous lily-white southern belles, handsome affluent southern gentlemen, and America’s refusal to admit how atrocious slavery was its ever-present residual effects, the movie’s depiction of the south and slavery is what most Americans have come to believe and “remember” about the Old South. The movie is often referred to as the most loved, enduring, and greatest American film of all time, despite glaring inaccuracies and caricaturing of blacks and women. The “Interview with Oliver Stone” also looks at how movies about historical events or people become valid historical interpretations within the mind of viewers; but at the same time, takes professional historians to task for hiding behind facts. Stone asks “Why are historians avoiding these dark areas of American History?” While referring to professional historians neglecting to investigate possible shameful and secret acts by Nixon, Stone’s question possesses a larger meaning. Stone believes that historians, in effort to be viewed as vanguards of truth and facts, do themselves and the people a disservice by refusing to make connections within their analysis that may not be based on what can be proven or supported through primary documents, or “on the record” interviews.

And in some respects, Stone’s problem with professional historians has been what we, students, have been recognizing throughout this class and past readings. If historians are so focused on looking at on one historical event or time and analyzing it to the point where they develop that as their expertise, is that not the true life embodiment of “not seeing the forest from the trees?” How can the student truly understand the way things connect and intersect unless historians are brave enough to make these jumps and include and consider what may not be able to be proven. How are learners of history supposed to understand American life during the War of 1812 if only the words of the affluent and literate are included in the discussion? How can we be so sure that every decision a historical figure made was done so out of deep meditation and calculation as opposed to doing something because “he/she felt like it” or simply thought it was a “good idea?” I’m recognizing more and more that history is not the story, but part of a story that remains constantly elusive, dynamic, and without boundaries.