I cannot decide if I wish I were surprised by these articles or not. As a part of my SSIR class, we have learned a lot about uncovering the intentionally buried stories of history especially surrounding the historic African American and slave history and culture in the United States and specifically here in Richmond. Sadly, not much surprises me anymore.
The more I read about our country’s true history, the more I want to find out more. Some new things I learned and was interested but simultaneously appalled by was the description of Lincoln’s opinions and how they changed depending on election timing and audience. Like many other leadership myths we have debunked (the founding fathers, MLK, JFK, Washington) we like to think Lincoln was a really genuine guy, maybe a little depressed about his son’s death, but a good guy who sadly got shot at a theatre. Upon further inspection, Lincoln’s First Inaugural Adrress, as Zinn calls is, “was conciliatory toward the South and seceded states” (189). Not that I am surprised considering the constant deconstruction of American legends I am seeing in many of my classes, but now I feel like we don’t really have anyone left. Super pessimistic and sad, I know, and no leaders are perfect, but Lincoln? Honest Abe?
In the second article, one point that stuck out to me was when Zinn talks about Montgomery being “the beginning”. Zinn describes that Montgomery:
“forecast the style and mood of the vast protest movement that would sweep the South in the next ten years: emotional church meetings, Christian hymns adapted to current battles, references to lost American ideals, the commitment to nonviolence, the willingness to struggle and sacrifice”. (451)
I completely agree with this statement. Over fall break I went to Montgomery with my SSIR class and visited the Equal Justice Institutes creations of the National Memorial for Peace and Justice as well as the Legacy Museum: From Enslavement to Mass Incarceration. What both of these places and many other historical markers around Montgomery and Selma describe is that Montgomery definitely set the tone for the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. Not just because of the bus boy coats and not just because Hoyt Street Church, but because what happened in other cities around the nation were dioramas and mini-replications of what happened in Montgomery.
Overall, these articles were enlightening yet also pretty depressing. It is sad to think that stories and myths of leaders have been engrained into our society for so long. I think it is our duty as scholars and especially scholars of leadership to question the legitimacy of the American story and not only bring out the truth but also bring out why we covered up the truth for so long. Only then can we move on and use our best judgement to improve how we record our history today.
I agree with you that its hard to have our fundamental understandings of these leaders be torn a part. One brighter note I took from this article was the use and recognition of a variety of sources. We talked about the bias of sources in academics, but Zinn uses a diverse array of sources, naming as many as possible. At one point, he also recognized a black female graduate student who uncovered a speech, implying that society had tried to bury it and in turn, recognizing that society has tried to silence minority voices.
It just goes to show that heroification of leaders is really a terrible terrible thing for history, the only benefit it has is to help small children remember facts, but it almost indoctrinates them into a almost blind following of their nation. I also agree that it is kinda depressing that America feels the need to cover up its history.
I agree that it is difficult to take these leaders off the pedestal that they were put on but truth is also important. This is not suggest that their accomplishments duo not require acknowledgment, however, the misconception about the value of black people should not continue either. The Emancipation Proclamation had an underlying political motif, inn fact, much about it was not even underlying–people just refused to acknowledge the truth of document. Knowing this know, hopefully this incites more change.
I agree that finding flaws in leaders – especially ones that we hold so highly – is an extremely difficult task. It can be hard to look past their image to find the unsavory things they’ve done in the past, but it’s necessary in order to accurately evaluate.
I agree that we tend to place leaders on a pedestal and once they are there, it is difficult to bring them down and recognize that they are human and imperfect. Children are taught that Lincoln was an honest man who wanted to free the slaves for the right reasons which is incorrect. It was only recently when I discovered that there was a political agenda behind the Emancipation Proclamation and I believe that this should start being taught by high school, the latest.
Even after we have debunked the myths of important leaders in US history, we still choose to remember them in the way that we have learned. Does that say something about humans’ fear of change? Or does it say something deeper about our need for heroes? If we continue to believe these myths that have been ingrained in our society, how will we ever learn from them?