Well I just finished my first blog entry, unfortunately I then deleted it so three hours of work went down the drain. I will however give this cursed thing another chance so here I go again on my own. The first chapter I read was Selling The Popular Myth. Being a popular culture buff who is also fascinated by the business aspect of it, this chapter seemed very promising. I regret to say however that I was disappointed. The author, Ann Butler, does not seem to enjoy any of it, be it rodeos, movies, or music. All she does is complain that it is not historically accurate, that it is racist, and that it is sexist. As a historian this is her job. It is however possible to enjoy the culture while admitting its faults. She misses the darker nuances of the film Red River and many 1950S westerns. She made no mention of The Searchers, possibly because it would contradict her thesis. Her comments on pg-783 regarding corporate sponsorship of rodeos strikes me as commercial puritanism. Her reference on the following page about Anglos not getting the social protest in the comedy of Carpas strikes me as snide. She did seem to like these though, on the basis of their authenticity. I think that if she focused more on how the popular myth developed and why they worked as entertainments it would have been a more interesting chapter. It may just be that I have a different philosophy towards popular culture than she does. I don't expect historical accuracy or authenticity. I don't care if the people making and financing things are pure of heart. All I care about is whether it works as art or entertainment. Maybe she has a greater appreciation of these things than I give her credit for, but I didn't see it. I think a deconstruction of the myths from the inside out as opposed from the outside in would have been more interesting.
I enjoyed the other chapter I read, National Initiatives, far more. It was a little depressing, but reading about the Indians having their land stolen by the United States is never a pleasant experience. The comparison between the experiences of the Navajo and the Lakota was fascinating. The Mexicans also got the fuzzy end of the lollipop, Anglos move in and then revolt. Then of course their was the war with the United States in 1845. In some ways the treatment of Mexico upsets me more, but that may just be because Mexico still has its own country. I also liked the section on the Mormons in Utah. I had heard their was enmity between the US government and the Mormons but I had no clue their was a Utah War. The story about Victor Smith, the corrupt customs agent, was a great find which I will tell my friends about. It was terrible what he did, but what a great story.
In regards to my paper topics I have many ideas, unfortunately I can only put two down. I want to do one on the film industry. Currently I am leaning towards the role of the film studio MGM played in the 1932 California Governors race. In that election the author Sinclair Lewis ran on a scaliest platform, being the Great Depression it looked like he would have a decent chance at winning. MGM head Louis B Mayer, a devoted Republican, found this possibility abhorrent and put all of his weight behind Lewis's opponent. This included having MGM make several anti-Lewis shorts, one showing a man with a foreign accent saying he was voting for Lewis. The only problem is that I'm not exactly sure how to relate it to the west as a whole. I think maybe the distrust of large government in the west by big business. The other idea I have is writing something on the Victor Smith case, maybe something about how the federal government exploited the west for their own gain. It's a little vague, I know. Hey both these topics tie together
Comments