WWGWD?
George Washington still kicks ass.
It can't be disputed that he was regarded almost as a demigod two hundred years ago. And it is silly to revere the man in the same fashion today.
A playwright once wrote George Washington as a character into his play and the public panned the production because he dared do more than have a George Washington figure walk accross the stage. He actually made Washington talk like a man. That offended the public. That might give you a slight sense of how much this man was worshipped.
But I am not immune to the fashionable late 20th/early 21st century cynicism that pervades our history lessons today. Though I was born a month and a few days before Nixon resigned, I still feel the effects of Watergate when I regard my political representatives. I like my history dirty, bloody and real. I like the insecurities and faults. I appreciate the embarrassing anecdotes.
But I do believe that some revisionists go too far.
Those revisionists not only strip away the myths that surround the men, to make them flesh and reveal their insecurities and dirty habits, but they also go one step further and measure their subjects' actions with a contemporary ethical yardstick. That's when these historians lose me. When you make a myth a man, I call that history. When you make a man a monster, I call that dimestore fiction. I call that biographic myopia.
But what's great about Washington is that you can't make him a monster. He has survived the worst of the revisionists (as I believe the fad is swinging toward the middle now, thank goodness) and he has never come out worse than a mere man.
He had a temper. He was in some ways vain. He made a few mistakes--one of which started the French and Indian War back before the Revolution. He may not have loved his wife very much. The negative anecdotes are few and usually pretty funny. He snapped at the man who painted his portrait, for example. Wooo.
And here's the worst thing, in my opinion, that you can say about him, the type of thing that folks (particularly young students) today are so fond of latching onto: He may have been incredibly aware of his own role in shaping the history of our country to the extent that he created a kind of persona so that he could be deified. He may have even refused to run for a third term partly because he wanted to preserve that status, as the public was just becoming capable of anger toward his administration. The essence of this accusation is that his humility was all an act.
Wow. From that to Watergate. What a monster. How naive of me to think that Washington kicks ass. Seriously, if you're a student today, try talking to your classmates about how Washington was a great man, still worthy of attention, praise and celebration. Call him a hero. You will not be taken seriously. Even one of the co-writers of 43 Presidents reacted with a kind of smug, knee-jerk acedemic cynicism to my musings about the old General.
Let's assume for a moment that people in history for some reason are less complicated than you or me, and CAN be reduced to uni-dimensional motivations, that they can be reduced to a formula that somehow explains the motivation behind all their deeds. Let's assume that General Washington's reluctance to serve as our first president was 100% vanity and 0% humility. Let's assume that his stepping down from office was the same.
Measure the man's actions and they are still those of an unparalelled hero.
He wasn't much of a warrior. That can't be disputed. His victory over the British was owed mostly to his habit of strategic retreat.
But Washington was fortunate enough to be remembered mostly as our President, as a leader, and those qualities no revisionist, no smug cynic with eyes to read could dispute.
As a Neo-Futurist, (a company that has its artistic shit together but is always on the verge of falling apart organizationally) I have sat through countless hours of furious meetings, heard bitter rumblings I felt would surely lead to mass retirement. And I have longed in those moments, to be led by a man or woman who could turn my heart around. What must that be like?
During the tail end of the revolution, while the British were negotiating their peace, Washington stood among rumblings so much more severe, from men who were convinced they would not be paid, would not get pensions from Congress. Some of the men even wanted to sieze power and overturn this slow, pathetic deliberative body.
General Washington, in one speech, was able to stand before a hostile, bitter and unwelcoming crowd of angry soldiers, and turn them into cheering, happy men unanimously in favor of sticking it out and giving Congress a chance. Some of them even weapt. It is easy to say that I have never met a person who in any way possesses the kind of greatness that George Washington possessed, that left everyone who met him with a lasting impression, inspiring them to use words like "majestic". But I would give up my life in the Neo-Futurists for one fifth of that greatness to be hired into our company's Valley Forge. It is badly needed.
I know of no other military leader who successfully overthrew his government and then did not rule it afterward. Even Cincinatus had been appointed interum dictator of Rome. But Washington, who could have been crowned king in an instant, resigned and went back to Mt. Vernon. King George III, upon being defeated by Washington's army, heard of Washington's intention to resign. He was in disbelief. The king said "If he indeed does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
Was Washington an actor? I don't think so, but I can't prove it. I do believe this, though: He did the right thing at the right time and it wasn't an accident. Does the reason entirely matter? His most honest desire was always to do what was right in those moments when he was so needed. And he was actually capable of doing those things. Does it matter that his motivation may have been in part or wholy selfish?
What have we come to expect from our heros? Are we not still in possession of those unrealistic ideals when we allow ourselves to be so cynical and unforgiving? Because with that cynicism, we laugh at what we call blind reverence, while we turn a blind eye to the essence of true human greatness (which is, I humbly suggest, all too human.) We make the mistake of comparing everyone to an ideal which doesn't exist--which, again I humbly suggest--is all too naive.
I will say it again, and I will say it proudly. George Washington still kicks ass. I will even go so far as to say he remains, unshakably, my hero.
(I created a T-Shirt design that makes me laugh. Check it out here.)
It can't be disputed that he was regarded almost as a demigod two hundred years ago. And it is silly to revere the man in the same fashion today.
A playwright once wrote George Washington as a character into his play and the public panned the production because he dared do more than have a George Washington figure walk accross the stage. He actually made Washington talk like a man. That offended the public. That might give you a slight sense of how much this man was worshipped.
But I am not immune to the fashionable late 20th/early 21st century cynicism that pervades our history lessons today. Though I was born a month and a few days before Nixon resigned, I still feel the effects of Watergate when I regard my political representatives. I like my history dirty, bloody and real. I like the insecurities and faults. I appreciate the embarrassing anecdotes.
But I do believe that some revisionists go too far.
Those revisionists not only strip away the myths that surround the men, to make them flesh and reveal their insecurities and dirty habits, but they also go one step further and measure their subjects' actions with a contemporary ethical yardstick. That's when these historians lose me. When you make a myth a man, I call that history. When you make a man a monster, I call that dimestore fiction. I call that biographic myopia.
But what's great about Washington is that you can't make him a monster. He has survived the worst of the revisionists (as I believe the fad is swinging toward the middle now, thank goodness) and he has never come out worse than a mere man.
He had a temper. He was in some ways vain. He made a few mistakes--one of which started the French and Indian War back before the Revolution. He may not have loved his wife very much. The negative anecdotes are few and usually pretty funny. He snapped at the man who painted his portrait, for example. Wooo.
And here's the worst thing, in my opinion, that you can say about him, the type of thing that folks (particularly young students) today are so fond of latching onto: He may have been incredibly aware of his own role in shaping the history of our country to the extent that he created a kind of persona so that he could be deified. He may have even refused to run for a third term partly because he wanted to preserve that status, as the public was just becoming capable of anger toward his administration. The essence of this accusation is that his humility was all an act.
Wow. From that to Watergate. What a monster. How naive of me to think that Washington kicks ass. Seriously, if you're a student today, try talking to your classmates about how Washington was a great man, still worthy of attention, praise and celebration. Call him a hero. You will not be taken seriously. Even one of the co-writers of 43 Presidents reacted with a kind of smug, knee-jerk acedemic cynicism to my musings about the old General.
Let's assume for a moment that people in history for some reason are less complicated than you or me, and CAN be reduced to uni-dimensional motivations, that they can be reduced to a formula that somehow explains the motivation behind all their deeds. Let's assume that General Washington's reluctance to serve as our first president was 100% vanity and 0% humility. Let's assume that his stepping down from office was the same.
Measure the man's actions and they are still those of an unparalelled hero.
He wasn't much of a warrior. That can't be disputed. His victory over the British was owed mostly to his habit of strategic retreat.
But Washington was fortunate enough to be remembered mostly as our President, as a leader, and those qualities no revisionist, no smug cynic with eyes to read could dispute.
As a Neo-Futurist, (a company that has its artistic shit together but is always on the verge of falling apart organizationally) I have sat through countless hours of furious meetings, heard bitter rumblings I felt would surely lead to mass retirement. And I have longed in those moments, to be led by a man or woman who could turn my heart around. What must that be like?
During the tail end of the revolution, while the British were negotiating their peace, Washington stood among rumblings so much more severe, from men who were convinced they would not be paid, would not get pensions from Congress. Some of the men even wanted to sieze power and overturn this slow, pathetic deliberative body.
General Washington, in one speech, was able to stand before a hostile, bitter and unwelcoming crowd of angry soldiers, and turn them into cheering, happy men unanimously in favor of sticking it out and giving Congress a chance. Some of them even weapt. It is easy to say that I have never met a person who in any way possesses the kind of greatness that George Washington possessed, that left everyone who met him with a lasting impression, inspiring them to use words like "majestic". But I would give up my life in the Neo-Futurists for one fifth of that greatness to be hired into our company's Valley Forge. It is badly needed.
I know of no other military leader who successfully overthrew his government and then did not rule it afterward. Even Cincinatus had been appointed interum dictator of Rome. But Washington, who could have been crowned king in an instant, resigned and went back to Mt. Vernon. King George III, upon being defeated by Washington's army, heard of Washington's intention to resign. He was in disbelief. The king said "If he indeed does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
Was Washington an actor? I don't think so, but I can't prove it. I do believe this, though: He did the right thing at the right time and it wasn't an accident. Does the reason entirely matter? His most honest desire was always to do what was right in those moments when he was so needed. And he was actually capable of doing those things. Does it matter that his motivation may have been in part or wholy selfish?
What have we come to expect from our heros? Are we not still in possession of those unrealistic ideals when we allow ourselves to be so cynical and unforgiving? Because with that cynicism, we laugh at what we call blind reverence, while we turn a blind eye to the essence of true human greatness (which is, I humbly suggest, all too human.) We make the mistake of comparing everyone to an ideal which doesn't exist--which, again I humbly suggest--is all too naive.
I will say it again, and I will say it proudly. George Washington still kicks ass. I will even go so far as to say he remains, unshakably, my hero.
(I created a T-Shirt design that makes me laugh. Check it out here.)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home