Most of the time when we think of someone who is legendary, we can also assume that the reasons for them being legendary are more so because of the legends than because of the facts. This could have part to do with us not knowing many solid facts about that person, or it could be that we are taking advantage of that person by imposing our own needs onto them. If you look closely into the stories of the legends you can find that the stories change from time period to time period and if you look even closer, you can find that the struggles and dreams of that time period are imposed onto that legendary person’s personality.

Billy the Kid is a perfect example of this. It’s true that there were other outlaws at the same time as Billy. Some of them may have even fit a better definition as an outlaw than Billy the Kid did. Or maybe there was someone who did more dangerous things or took more of a leadership role. Even if there was somebody who could fit all the criteria above, the fact still stands that we naturally have a tendency to project our wants and our needs onto someone or something. And who better to change than someone as malleable as Billy the Kid: someone that we really don’t know too much about, someone whose boundaries are so blurry that you can’t help but to cross them, someone we can demonize or angelize to help fit our own personal taste.

According to Robert M. Utley, “In the history of the American West he [Billy the Kid] rates scarcely a footnote” (Billy the Kid Country). This again points out the fact that Billy is more of a “tabula rasa” that is used for each generation’s ideals, frustrations, and wishes (Utley). Billy was a hero during the Lincoln County War and even showed some leadership skills, even though that’s not what we know him for, but afterwards, he just fell back into a position of normal teenage rebelliousness. During the last six months of his life, newspapers created a tall tale of him, which laid the foundation for the Billy the Kid that we know today. So if this is the only part of his life that we ever really focus on, then why is that we say Billy has killed one man for each year that he lived? Or why do we constantly find ourselves debating about whether Billy was a good kid who got caught up due to bad circumstances or rather he just started off a rotten tomato? What is it that made Billy “a tragic hero, a romantic hero, an antihero, a juvenile delinquent, a brilliant marksman, a terrible shot, a practiced dancer, a lady’s man, a slob, a short-tempered rube, left-handed, right-handed” (Page)? The answer is us. The reason Billy has been a devil reincarnation, a poor unfortunate soul, and everything in between is because we needed somebody to fill all those roles. Maybe there is somebody who could be better than Billy at being a evil villain with no feelings or being someone innocent who just got caught in the cross fire, and maybe they have some hard proven evidence of why there are perceived that way, but that person would be historical, not legendary. A strictly historical person doesn’t change when we need them to. If they were a villain during the Victorian times, they’re still going to be a villain during the Depression times. It takes someone we don’t have many facts about, like Billy the Kid for instance, to be legendary. We don’t know how many men he killed for sure so if we want him to be evil during the Victorian times, it’s okay for him to kill 40 men without thinking twice about it. And if we want him to be the good martyr during the Depression era, it’s okay for him to kill only four men because he was seeking justice. After all, there’s nothing that can actually tell us that we’re wrong.

If we look back at Billy during some of these time periods, we can easily tell what was happening in our society. During the 1930s, Billy was a mature young man who was seen as good. He was just dealt the wrong hand by life. But in the end, he was given a chance to get away and start a new life. During this time we were also going through the Great Depression. A time when everybody was struggling and desperately needed something to help them believe that there was such a thing as a happy ending. So why is it that the same exact movie, Billy the Kid, was made in the 1940s with a more sinister Billy? This Billy seeks revenge and meets death with a smile on his face. During the 1940s, we were engaged in World War II and we were a generated so fascinated with wars that most of the great movies that were mane during that time were about wars. In the 1950s, we got The Left-Handed Gun, where Billy was young, wild, careless, and practically crazy. The 1950s is a time when we start getting ready for the next generation. Music like rock-n-roll and jazz come out. Music that, in essence, crossed socially accepted borders. Music that made it okay to talk about wild things, at least what was considered wild in those days, like relationships, sex, emotions, and racial equality.

We have also brought Billy back in the last few years. Brushy Bill Roberts came forth in 1949 and said that he was the real Billy the Kid and it was somebody else who was buried in his place. Although this took place closer to the 1940s and 1950s, it never really left us. It was requested to dig up the remains of Billy the Kid and his mother in 2004 to prove that the real Billy the Kid was in fact shot. We still concentrate on the fact that Brushy could possibly be Billy with movies like Young Guns II and television shows like Unsolved Mysteries. So what does this say about our generation? It could be that our generation is obsessed with the truth since we are always trying to separate myth from fact. It could also be that our generation loves scandals. After all we do thrive on shows like Jersey Shore and The Real Housewives and Gossip Girl and any other television show that is full of drama and scandals. We may not know what it is, but I’m sure the next generation will be able to tell us.

I think racism does was a large part of the reason why Roosevelt dishonorably discharged the black soldiers in the Brownsville incident. Roosevelt  said he believed that blacks could gradually become socially equal with whites, but he felt like this would take several years and that they shouldn’t be given equality right away.  He felt like it took whites thousands of years to change from savagery to being able to take care of themselves. In his mind, blacks were still in the savagery stage and they wouldn’t be able to change to civilized over night. He assigned some blacks to political offices because he believed that some of them were able to handle those positions, but he felt that blacks as a general whole was not ready for that type of responsibility. He felt that a race had to grow to be “fit” to govern themselves. According to him, “Such fitness is not a God-given natural right, but comes to a race only through the slow growth of centuries, and then only to those races which posses an immense reserve fund of strength, common sense, and morality” (Idea 97).  He also had some racial reserves when it came to the military. He thought that there was a distinct difference in race when it came to fighting also. He felt like black soldiers fight well, but their color should be taken into account whenever there’s fighting for an extended period of time. He felt like blacks were too dependent on the whites and would not be able to become leaders themselves. He  said that whites remained cool while the fighting was going on, but the blacks panicked and ran to the back of the line to protect themselves. He felt that this superstitious behavior and panic was due to their recent removal from savagery. When the threat of losing black votes was brought up due to this accusation, Roosevelt re-evaluated his public statement  and said that it was a white captain’s fault that he thought that. He also said that he wouldn’t say anything against black soldiers, but there’s no proof that he changed his views privately. Although he did believe in the possibility of blacks becoming equal to whites, he still showed some racism against how he viewed blacks at that time.

One of the questions that we want to focus on with Billy the Kid, and that we have focused on with other Legendary Americans, is the societal needs that Billy fit.

As I’ve did some research on Billy, I’ve noticed that there’s not many facts that are known about Billy and that all sources agree on. Last weekend, I found two articles that talk about how Billy’s image has been changed throughout the years in order to fit the needs of the people of those times. After reading those articles, I kind of did a little review of the materials that I had already found to see how Billy was portrayed during those times and why he was portrayed that way and what need did he need to fill for the society of the time. One of the biggest things that stick out the most in my mind is the difference of Billy, the character, in Billy the Kid and
The Left Handed Gun. I remember in one article that I read, it talked about how Billy was seen in the time that he was living. He seemed to be more well liked by the people who were around him, who weren’t outlaws. Some of the people felt that he was a scapegoat of  The Lincoln County Wars and that was the reason he had to die. And it seemed as if the people didn’t side for the outlaws or for the law, because neither one of them were really the “good” people. This made a lot of since about why Billy was portrayed the way he was in Billy the Kid. In this movie, he seemed to be more of a good guy and more responsible. Even in the end Pat Garrett, who was part of the law and suppose to be against Billy, let him go instead of trying to shoot him.

By the time The Left Handed Gun came along, Billy wasn’t still seen in this innocent way and it really shows. He seems to be more reckless and childish and unstable. They show him as more of an outlaw whenever he decides that he is going to seek revenge. He is loved by the people of Mexico, but the people of New Mexico aren’t very big fans of him. There’s still a little pity for him because it shows that he only killed 4 people. And when he is shot by Pat Garrett while Billy is unarmed so he doesn’t seem too bad.

Today, Billy is seen as more of a murderer than an outlaw or a “good” guy. Today he is known as killing over 2o men and being more of a nuisance to his society and there’s not much pity felt about him dying or how he died.

I do believe that “heroification” in American History textbooks is a problem. I think the two examples that James Loewen gives of  Helen Keller and Woodrow Wilson are perfect examples of how some things about our legendary Americans are silenced. I know that the only thing I ever heard about Helen Keller, whether it was the things she went through or her quotes, were from her childhood. I honestly thought that she died at an early age since I never really heard of anything from her older years. Reading this article is the first time that I have hear of Helen Keller living til 1968.

As far as Woodrow Wilson goes, the only thing I could really remember  about him was that he was one of the presidents. I’m not saying that he was a boring president, but it seemed like he kind of blended with the other ones. Some stood out cause of things they did or things that happened to them while they were the president like Nixon and the Watergate Scandal, JFK’s assassination, Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, William Howard Taft getting stuck in the tub, Bill Clinton and his alleged affair, etc. I don’t remember ever reading about his racial segregation of the government and the military interventions in different countries. Wilson would be much more memorable if textbooks actually talked about those points in the higher grades without trying to shift the blame to someone else other than Wilson.

I think it’s important that if we are going to think of somebody as a legendary American, than we should know everything there is to know about them, even the bad things or the things we find socially incorrect. I don’t think it needs to be introduced right away, but it should be gradually introduced. I think middle school would probably be the appropriate time to start administering the truth to students. That way the students won’t be so young to need “protection” but gradually introducing them to these things would be more realistic then having most of the people seem perfect.

Another point that Loewen brings up is that the people that we study in the history books aren’t looked to as role models. I know many kids who look up to popular stars of today that  have their mistakes and indecent behaviors posted all over magazines and the TV.  I have not heard of many kids today whose role models are people that they have studied in their history books, the perfect American icons.  Showing the mistakes of people from the past that we still consider legends today will make them seem more realistic and easier to relate to and make learning about them more interesting.

One of the most changed facts that I have found about Billy is the way that he died. Some articles say that Billy was shot in his sleep by Garrett. Some say that he was shot in a draw. Some accounts say that Garrett shot Billy in the back because he didn’t have the nerve to shoot him face to face. Some people claim that Billy isn’t actually dead and that they are Billy the Kid. In The Left Handed Gun, Billy was shot by Garrett when he pretended to draw, but didn’t have a gun. In Billy the Kid, Billy wasn’t even shot. Garrett pretended that Billy escaped and there was no possibility of him being caught. In Pat Garrett’s account, him shooting Billy seemed more like a self defense measure . http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/billythekid.htm. Garrett shot Billy after Billy raised his pistol to Garrett’s chest. A fact that just recently came up is that murder charges were brought up against Garrett for shooting Billy. http://www.badhombres.com/outlaws/billy-the-kid.htm .

One man, “Brushy Billy” Roberts, a man from Texas, claimed that he is Billy the Kid. http://crisrodrigues.hubpages.com/hub/Is-Billy-The-Kid-Really-Dead. A lawyer named William Morrison was told by one of his clients that Billy wasn’t actually dead. The client said that he fought against Billy in the Lincoln County Wars and Billy the Kid was now living by the name “Brushy Billy”. Morrison was interested in this claim so he talked to some of the other people and found that most of them believed that Billy wasn’t dead. Morrison finally sought out Brushy  to figure out if the claim about him being Billy the Kid was true. Brushy told Morrison that it was true and asked him to help get a pardon from New Mexico’s governor that he was promised back in 1879. Brushy showed Morrison scars that were the same as the ones Billy the Kid obtained while he was an outlaw and took him on haunts of Billy’s in Lincoln County to prove that he was actually Billy the Kid. According to Brushy, Billy was shot in the head and shoulder and passed out from the pain. When he came to, Billy’s girlfriend informed him that Billy Barrow, his partner, was killed and would be buried in Billy the Kid’s place. There is some belief that Pat Garrett knew he killed the wrong man, but he went through great measures to keep it covered up. Brushy had a heart attack and died shortly after his pardon was denied.

There are many stories surrounding Billy’s death which brings up the question why does the way Billy died matter and if Brushy really was Billy, than how does that change what we have thought about Billy’s history so far?

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=brushy+bill+roberts&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tbm=isch&tbnid=zPkbY31twd5qKM:&imgrefurl=http://warrenfahey.com/barlow/bb-ch13-2.html&docid=fmCOw3rFYI_r6M&imgurl=http://warrenfahey.com/barlow/images/Billy-the-kid.jpg&w=329&h=500&ei=-zi6Tq7cHuTlsQLh7bjJCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=557&vpy=106&dur=18&hovh=277&hovw=182&tx=102&ty=142&sig=100052138744352220405&page=2&tbnh=142&tbnw=94&start=23&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:23&biw=1212&bih=659

http://webspace.webring.com/people/gt/thedrifter67/old.jpg

I think Elvis’s view of race, to the public, has become misconstrued over the years. From all the readings, I personally don’t feel like Elvis had an issue with race. I feel like the rumors had a large impression on how people see Elvis’s view on race.

One of the stories about Elvis’s rise to fame is that he stole African American musical forms from the South and repackaged them as his own music for “white” audiences. Even with Walker’s story, I don’t get the feeling that Elvis stole the songs. In the story, Traynor, Elvis’s counterpart, and his manager pays for all of Gracie Mae’s records and promises to pay her loyalties. After he makes money off the songs, he still sends Gracie Mae presents and he writes to her often while he is in the military. Traynor takes Gracie Mae on the Johnny Carson show and has her sing the song that he bought from her and made money off of. And when the crowd does not respond like they normally do when Traynor performs the song, he gets very upset.

In the other articles, they mention Elvis and his love for the black culture that he adopted some of his ways from. Rosenbaum quotes Professor Spencer on his thoughts about Elvis’s sexuality. Spencer expresses that the Leg Wiggle theory that is seen in Forest Gump is actually from rhythms that underlie African American music.  Professor Spencer said that “what Elvis loved in white gospel was the rhythms of black gospel” (Rosenbaum 54). He believed that Elvis succeeded in seducing white America into blackness. He felt that it was “the Sexual Healing of White America” (Rosenbaum 54).

Also in Bertrand’s article, he shows both sides of how African Americans felt about Elvis’s music. When the Chicago Defender stated Elvis as the “King of Rock”, one man stated “Naw he ain’t! My friend Chuck Berry is the King of Rock. Presley was merely a prince who profited from the royal talent of sovereign ruler vested with tremendous creativity” (Bertrand 63). After the rumor about Elvis’s derogatory comment about African Americans, some blacks compared talking to Presley like “talking to Adolf Hitler about the Jews” (Bertrand 66). He was also seen in a negative light by some singers like Mary J. Blige and Public Enemy. But some African Americans saw him in a more positive light. Langston Hughes claimed that Presley was from the “same sea” but “some water has chlorine in and some does not” (Bertrand 76). Presley also would admit that many of the singers that he got his inspiration from were African American singers, like B.B. King. He would also go to rhythm and blues performances when he had the chance and watch them perform from behind the curtain.

I don’t believe that Elvis was a racist. From what it seems, Elvis had an appreciation for African American rhythms and seeked to emulate them in his music.

I found some similarities, but mainly differences, between The Left Handed Gun and Billy the Kid.

Both of the movies started around the same point. They were both around the time when Billy was getting to know Tungsten and when he started to become loyal to him. In Billy the Kid, however, Billy seemed to be a lot more mature than the Billy in The Left Handed Gun. You could tell just from the appearances of the two actors. The actor in Billy the Kid seemed more muscular and taller and his features seemed to be more pronounced than those of Paul Newman. He also looked as if he was older than Paul Newman. You could still see some of things that Billy did in The Left Handed Gun, like dancing, but even then the Billy in Billy the Kid carried himself more maturely and the dancing was less sporadic. Also in Billy the Kid, Billy was a lot more independent than he was in The Left Handed Gun. In The Left Handed Gun, Billy always went to one of his friends’ house whenever he was hurt and they were the ones who took care of him. Also when he went to seek his revenge,  he took two of the other guys with him. In Billy the Kid, Billy was a lot more independent. He didn’t turn to so many people for help and it seemed as if he got hurt a lot less.

Also, in Billy the Kid, the relationship between Billy and Tungsten went more in depth. In The Left Handed Gun, Tungsten found Billy while he was hurt and took him in and gave him one of his horses. In Billy the Kid, you could see more of a relationship being formed and you could see how Billy was protective of Tungsten. In both of the movies, Billy swore he would get his revenge on the people who killed Tungsten. A large part of Billy the Kid was focused to Billy trying to protect McSweeney. In The Left Handed Gun, Billy didn’t really protect McSweeny. He just stayed at McSweeney’s house after Tungsten was killed. Also McSweeney died by being burned in his house. In Billy the Kid, Billy and some other outlaws are in McSweeney’s house shooting at the sheriff and his men to protect McSweeney. McSweeney dies because he goes outside and gives himself up. The sheriff’s men still burn the house, but this Billy is very calm while he is in the house. He even uses the fire to light his cigarette.

The relationship between Billy and Pat Garrett are also pictured very differently. In The Left Handed Gun, Billy and Pat are friends until Billy goes back on his promise and shoots somebody at Pat’s wedding. In Billy the Kid, Billy and Pat have more of a “frenemie” relationship. Pat is already the sheriff which automatically makes him more of an enemy for Billy, but you can tell that they have a strange, caring relationship with each other. They compare how far they can shoot coins. Pat tries his best to catch Billy without using violence, like in the scene where he lured Billy out by cooking bacon, and in the end Pat does not shoot Billy. He shoots at Billy and doesn’t try to pursue him when he gets on the horse and rides away, which is also different from in The Left Handed Gun. Pat actually shoots Billy when he sees that Billy pretends to draw.

In Billy the Kid, you can’t see Billy being friendly with his jailers. You can tell his dislike for his first guard and his second guard was Pat Garrett. In The Left Handed Gun, Billy played  cards with his jailers and was very friendly with them. He really didn’t want to shoot them when he escaped.

There are many differences between the two Billy’s portrayed in these movies, but it probably has a lot to do with what times they were made in. One was made in the 1930’s, the other in the 1950’s.

I think some of the reasons why outlaws like Jesse James, Dillinger, and Bonnie and Clyde were famous in their own times are related to why they are “legendary” now.

According to Richard White, what made the bandits social bandits was that the were forced into becoming outlaws because of acts by the government and because they were seen as criminals by the authority. They  only became criminals because of the circumstances that they had to grow through or because of previous, scarring run ins with the authorities. Members of his community, however, still respected them and would help them out when they needed help. Also to members in their community, they were seen as modern day Robin Hoods and only killed in self-defense or revenge. Even though they did kill, they had morals and codes. The outlaws that stuck to these morals and codes were deemed untouchable unless they were betrayed by a friend. They also handled things on a more personal level opposed to on a political level like radicals and their supporters.  They were greatly supported because they were going against the things that were holding them back during that time period. They were also great symbols of masculinity, which was greatly needed during the Great Depression era. A man that could right his wrongs and seeking revenge was found very appealing during an era where everything was newly industrialized.

Some of the reasons that bandits are remembered today are the same as the reasons they were remembered during their time. One of the reasons that they are remembered both today and at their time is because of the importance of masculinity. Also, the importance of individualism is just as stressed today as it was during the time of the bandits. But, there are some other reasons that these outlaws are remembered differently now than what they were during their time. One reason is because of the sexual appeal of the bandits. In Remembering John Dillinger, the author mentions how “the legend of his enormous member a generation after extended and literalized the wildly reported fact that sex was central to the story and that women were attracted to him”. It was remembered how he died with two women on his arms. Sexuality is also capitalized on in the story of Bonnie and Clyde. The outlaws were also remembered as a warning of the dangers of the cities. Also, the style was capitalized on after the leisure things became affordable to most families. And in Bonnie and Clyde, feminism also became important.

The reading material that we had for this week actually helped me to understand the actions of Billy in The Left Handed Gun a lot better. I feel like, according to the movie, Billy definitely fit the “western social bandit tradition”. Billy is forced into the outlaw lifestyle after he goes after he shoots Brady and Morton.The only reason that Billy killed was to revenge Tunstall’s death. He is considered a threat by the authorities,  but many of the citizens help him when he is in need and even invite him to social gatherings. He is only caught when he is betrayed by the reporter who became upset with him after Billy pushed him.

In the movie, like I’ve previously mentioned, Billy seems to be very boyish. Having him portrayed in this way makes him seem more like a normal person than a criminal. Also this could possibly help with the audience’s sympathy for Billy and it makes him seem more innocent.

The thin line between vigilantes and bandits was also shown in this movie. Towards the beginning of the movie, you can see how the people gathered about killing Tunstall and they ambushed him and fired several shots at him. They also tried to do this for Billy the Kid, but they were unsuccessful.

Billy did not have the family support that other gang members had. He did, however, have certain families that he knew would help nurse him back to health and warn him of any possible danger. Also as shown in the movie, most of Billy’s supporters lived in more rural areas.

In the movie, there also some great signs of masculinity shown. Billy was able to protect himself, which was one of the most valuable traits when it came to masculinity. Billy also committed his crimes geared more towards personal things than political. The crimes that he committed was because he was revenging Tunstall’s death.

Also, according to White, “outlaw stories go out of their way to detach the social bandit from the ordinary criminal.” I would say that this is true in Billy’s case. Most of the time when you hear about Billy, you only hear about how he killed and the suggested number of people that he killed. Knowing that he killed for revenge makes him seem more like a bandit,which he was, than the criminal that he comes off as. Also like in other western movies, the good qualities of Billy is highlighted like his honor and loyalty, but his crimes are seen as distasteful, especially when he is shot at the end of the movie.

Historians use songs often, but not necessarily for the purposes of basing their information off of the songs. Most authors use lyrics in the songs to be the names of chapters or books. According to the book on page 27, “songs usually fail our litmus test for a good document”. The songs are sort of like the oral histories because they both are normally updated, misremembered, and transformed. Fortunately with the African American track liner’s songs, they had been passed down like documents but without paper.

One of the disadvantages to the songs is that even though the words stayed the same, the way the song was sung was misconstrued which lead to people misinterpreting the meaning of the songs. The modern singing of the songs has different speed, phrasing, and rhythmic accompaniment which has led for the songs to be interpreted to happy and upbeat and makes John Henry seem like a hero who accomplished something impossible. But the truth is that hammer songs are not normally upbeat and about heroes. Most of them are about cursing hard work, their bosses, and unfaithful women. Many of the songs today focus on John Henry’s victory over the steam roller and how his hard worked paid off. The hammer songs that were about John Henry actually focused on his hard work, his suffering, and his death. And instead of hard work paying off, the songs were actually about escape. The story of John Henry was a warning, not a praise. Singing these dark lyrics warned them that if they worked too fast that they would die an ugly death.

Some of the advantages that using songs is the affect that they have on history now and the information that you can get out of them. The rhythms of the track lining songs was used to help base most music today like blues, jazz, and country. Also, the work songs used by the track liners give us more information about their experiences that were otherwise silenced in written documents. The lyrics give us a closer look to what the track liners had to experience daily, their dreams, and how they felt about the network of rails. These songs also give us a closer look at the work ethic of the liners’. They used certain words to be code for certain actions that they needed to perform. This resulted in less backaches and muscle strains, and their pace of the lyrics determined the pace of their work. The songs also show the true history of what would really happen on the rail lines instead of the stories that make the work seem much happier than what it really was.