“Lisa the Iconoclast” is the sixteenth
episode of the seventh season of The Simpsons. The bicentennial for the town of Springfield
approaches, Lisa Simpson visits a local museum dedicated to the history of the town founder:
Jebediah Springfield. The historian, Hollis Hurlbut, teaches Lisa
about the greatness of Jebediah, who famously tamed the wild buffalo, led settlers from
Maryland to a new land and founded the town they know and love to today. While Mr. Hurlbut is in the other room, Lisa
discovers a secret confession hidden inside Jebediah's fife. She learns that Jebediah Springfield's real
name was Hans Sprungfeld, that he never tamed the wild buffalo and that he was actually
a pirate who had no love for the people of the town whatsoever. Her further research shows that Jebediah once
tried to assassinate President George Washington in the midst of a botched robbery. Lisa's mother, Marge, does not believe her
– nor does anyone else in town, including Mr. Hurlburt. Lisa's father, Homer, does believe her and
tries to help her convince the town. In the end, she finally has irrefutable proof
of the true identity of Jebediah, but at the last moment, she opts not to inform the town
during the bicentennial parade, concluding that the myth of Jebediah Springfield brings
out the best in people and that this ignorance actually has greater value than the truth. There is a happy ending, Lisa and Homer march
in the parade, and all is well in Springfield once more. Although the episode is specifically about
the fictional town of Springfield, Lisa's words about historical mythology being an
unassailable good is questionable. Broadening the scope of historical mythology
to national myth – myths of the United States – we see that these myths have a negative
impact not only on our understanding of history but on policy and attitudes about the United
States to this day. Patriotism does not always “bring out the
best” in people, and its related cousin, nationalism, can bring out the worst. Philosopher and psychologist Rollo May once
said “A myth is a way of making sense in a senseless world. Myths are narrative patterns that give significance
to our existence.” That is more or less what Lisa Simpson is
saying, but myth can be more than that, and it's important to draw a distinction between
myth as propaganda and myth as etiology. An etiological myth is a story that explains
something that is contemporaneously unexplainable, such as ancient Greek myths about the changing
seasons. Myth as propaganda, however, intentionally
replaces facts, replace history, and becomes more akin to misinformation than a tale tale
or harmless fable. American myths are very much myths as propaganda. While America is a continent, not a country,
I'll be using the naming convention of shortening United States of America to “America”
and “US-Americans” as “Americans” here. Nobody needs to “Lisa Simpson” me about
naming conventions that I did not invent and cannot change, thank you very much. American Mythology begins with Christopher
Columbus and his arrival in the Americas. This sets “discovery” as a key, foundational
aspect of what it means to be American, which in turn comes to justify colonization and
westward expansion as “destiny” rather than choice, obfuscating responsibility for
the consequences. Columbus, though from a foreign land, is adopted
by Americans and inserted into American mythology as its foundational mythological figure. In the very beginning of a letter sent back
to Spain upon his arrival in the “new world”, Columbus describes how by his mere presence,
he has declared possession of land by bringing the Native population under Spanish colonial
rule: “I discovered a great many islands, inhabited by numberless people; and of all
I have taken possession for their Highnesses by proclamation and display of the Royal Standard
without opposition...” When Columbus declared the land his, who among
the indigenous people present could understand his language and what was going on, let alone
spoke an opposing that Columbus would have understood? Columbus justification is that no one opposed
his claim and that any rights were therefore forfeited. By dismissing the indigenous people as primitive,
Columbus justified his later actions. By re-naming the lands the people who inhabited
them, Columbus positioned himself as the only authority and therefore the author of his
own story, his own myth. Historian Heike Paul, author of The Myths
That Made America, explained it thusly: “Translating, naming, and classifying are operations that
are part of the process of colonization and intricate parts of the process of ‘othering,’
i.e. of turning the Native population into ‘the other’ and the object of European
rule. In Columbus’s description of the ‘new
world’ inhabitants, there is a clear dichotomy of us (the Europeans) vs. them (the Native
population) at work – both groups are portrayed as fundamentally and irreconcilably different
from each other. This extreme polarization – what Hartog
describes as the “excluded middle” – is another ingredient in the rhetoric of otherness
that produces unbridgeable difference, introduces a steep hierarchy between ‘us’ and ‘them,’
and thus legitimizes asymmetrical power relations.” American mythology related the Columbus resembles
an etiological creation myth, but the intention of the myth was not to explain something that
was contemporaneously unexplainable. Instead, it was myth as propaganda, initially
for the Spanish royalty to prove that his voyage was a success and could see a return
on the investment, but later, the myth helped solidify “discovery” as an inherently
American attribute. The consequence of mythologizing Columbus'
“discovery” is that if discovery is wholly American, then whatever Columbus did to the
indigenous people was in service of discovery and therefore American. This is why contradicting the Columbus myth
produces an opposition based in nationalism. Historical criticism, even dispassionate historical
investigation into Columbus provokes defensive cries from Americans that if not for Columbus,
there would be no America, and we should all just shut up and not reconsider our nation's
past, and if we don't like it, well, we can just go to Russia – or something. Love it or leave it. In the aforementioned episode, Lisa the Iconoclast,
when Lisa attempts to expose Jebediah Springfield for his crimes, Apu knowingly asks her not
to do so in his store, largely out of fear. He knows that contradicting American mythology
is seen as “un-American” and as an immigrant, he will be subject to greater scrutiny and
oppression than Lisa would. [clip] Because of Columbus' position as the
foundational mythological figure in America, criticism of Columbus is viewed as “un-American”
in spite of the fact that Columbus himself was not American. In spite of this, Columbus is inextricably
linked with America, mythologized in many ways. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, author of An Indigenous
Peoples' History of the United States, gives a few examples: “The Columbus myth suggests that from US
independence onward, colonial settlers saw themselves as part of a world system of colonization. 'Columbia,' the poetic, Latinate name used
in reference to the United States from its founding throughout the nineteenth century,
was based on the name of Christopher Columbus. The 'Land of Columbus' was-and still is-represented
by the image of a woman in sculptures and paintings, by institutions such as Columbia
University, and by countless place names, including that of the national capital, the
District of Columbia. The 1798 hymn 'Hail, Columbia' was the early
national anthem and is now used whenever the vice president of the United States makes
a public appearance, and Columbus Day is still a federal holiday despite Columbus never having
set foot on the continent claimed by the United States.” Children are taught about Columbus “discovering
America” in school, and unless they look into it further, that is what they believe
for the rest of their lives. [clip] Christopher Columbus initiated the
two greatest crimes in the history of the Western Hemisphere, the Atlantic slave trade,
and the Native American genocide. Among his most notable crimes, Columbus ordered
1,500 men and women seized, eventually letting 400 go, condemning 500 to be sent to Spain,
and another 600 to be enslaved by Spanish men remaining on the island. Approximately 200 of the 500 sent to Spain
died on the voyage, and were thrown overboard by the Spanish. Historians estimate that there were about
300,000 inhabitants of Hispaniola in 1492. Between 1494 and 1496, 100,000 died, half
due to mass suicide rather than be enslaved by Columbus. By 1548, it was estimated to be only 500. These facts are irrefutable and widely understood
by historians across the world. Nevertheless, referencing these facts provoke
a severe, defensive reaction from Americans, calling Columbus a “hero” and offering
no consideration for everything else he did. [clip] Columbus wrote his own myth and it
continued long after his death. There is no “secret confession” of Columbus
the way there is with Jebediah Springfield. Quite the opposite. It is Columbus' writings that his defenders
and mythmakers use to glorify him and subsequently glorify America. 19th century historian Aaron Goodrich, in
his book A History of the Character and Achievements of the So-Called Christopher Columbus, wrote
the following: “We are constantly told that the weight of authority is on the side of
Columbus; but how can the ardent seeker of truth, and truth only, fail to be discouraged
when he finds how partial is the testimony in the case? … Columbus thus becomes his own historian
and eulogist, laying down the law by which the claims of all others are to be judged. He would naturally present his own side of
the case, and, from what his writings lead us to suppose, would not scruple to slander
those whose opinions or statements differed from his, or who had opposed any of his measures.” Consequences of mythologizing discovery and
expansion as indisputable American attributes include hundreds of years of trampling Native
American rights – from various conflicts and forced relocation to incidents in modern
times like the Dakota pipeline. If this were happening, say, in the middle
of Dallas or Boston, we would be outraged, but centuries of mythologizing about the founding
of America – much of which contains “othering” the indigenous people – has much of America
think of this concern as something unrelated to “real America” – the unfortunate
happenstance of a “race apart” rather than the consequences of hundreds of years
of propaganda and anti-historical cultural myths. [clip: II. The Founding Fathers] In the eighth episode
of the first season of The Simpsons, “The Tell-Tale Head”, Bart meets some new friends,
the worst kids in school. After a day of sneaking into movies and shoplifting,
Bart and his cohorts look at images in the clouds. Bart sees the statue of Jebediah Springfield
without its head. Jimbo remarks that it would be funny if someone
cut off the head of the statue. Bart, hoping to impress his new friends, sneaks
out in the middle of the night and saws off the head. The town is in mourning. Nobody has been hurt, nobody lost their life,
but the fact that the statue of their town's founder has been vandalized has crushed the
spirits of everyone in Springfield. Bart eventually confesses his crime to his
family, and on the way back to return the head, the townspeople discover what happened
and attempt to lynch a ten year old boy. Bart, having learned his lesson, replaces
the head, and he and Homer walk away unscathed. Although vandalism is far from a capital offense,
the people of Springfield firmly believed it was their duty to execute anyone who defiled
the memory of their founding father. Jebediah is revered locally much as the “Founding
Fathers” of the United States of America are revered nationally. According to the aforementioned book The Myths
That Made America: “The myth of the Founding Fathers constitutes an American master narrative
which has enshrined a group of statesmen and politicians of the revolutionary and post-revolutionary
period as personifications of the origin of American nationhood, republicanism, and democratic
culture. ...the Founding Fathers epitomize a political
myth of origin that is phrased in a language of kinship. The term ‘Fathers’ suggests tradition,
legitimacy, and paternity and creates an allegory of family and affiliation that affirms the
union and the cohesion of the new nation.” Who counts as a “founding father” is debatable. The people who signed the Declaration of Independence,
perhaps, or those who those who had a hand in the United States Constitution, or both? Certainly the early presidents, at least,
though there is no official and universally agreed-upon list. The Founding Fathers is a myth that claims
that the United States evolved from the Puritans’ Mayflower Compact to the political maturity
of a representative republic. If Columbus resembles a creation myth, the
Founding Fathers are a post-flood re-creation myth, a new beginning through the American
Revolution. The mythologized Founding Fathers symbolize
cooperation. The myth is hegemonic – these “fathers”
all working toward one goal. The myth tones down internal conflicts among
these fathers, erasing their plans, their interests, their disagreements. They form a collective in the myth, a singular
political entity. The myth also strongly personalizes the origins
of the United States and its representative republic by presenting them as the results
of the political genius, virtue, and audacity of history's “great men.” This personalization breeds a kind of unearned
familiarity with the founding fathers. When Springfield's founder is “attacked”
through vandalism, the town takes it personally. This is not only an attack on a statue – itself
centered around a myth of Jebediah Springfield killing a bear. It's an attack on themselves due to this unearned
familiarity. One man almost always included in conversations
and lists about “founding fathers” is President George Washington. Mythology about Washington was that he could
not tell a lie and that he famously fought for liberty, but even a cursory examination
of Washington shows him to have been a deeply deceptive figure as well as someone who denied
the liberty of others. When Washington, was 11 years old, he inherited
10 slaves from his father’s estate. This was not something simply thrust upon
him. Throughout his life, he continued to acquire
slaves, some more through inheritance and others through his own direct purchases. In 1759, he married the wealthy widow Martha
Dandridge Custis, bringing in over 80 more slaves to the estate at Mount Vernon, bringing
his total to almost 150 slaves. Washington used slave labor to maintain his
wealth, his lifestyle and his reputation. As he aged, he considering ridding himself
of his slaves, as he famously wrote in 1778, but he never did. According to New York Times journalist Erica
Armstrong Dunbar, President Washington actually went to great lengths to maintain his ownership
of his slaves. “During the president’s two terms in office,
the Washingtons relocated first to New York and then to Philadelphia. Although slavery had steadily declined in
the North, the Washingtons decided that they could not live without it. Once settled in Philadelphia, Washington encountered
his first roadblock to slave ownership in the region — Pennsylvania’s Gradual Abolition
Act of 1780. The act began dismantling slavery, eventually
releasing people from bondage after their 28th birthdays. Under the law, any slave who entered Pennsylvania
with an owner and lived in the state for longer than six months would be set free automatically. This presented a problem for the new president. Washington developed a canny strategy that
would protect his property and allow him to avoid public scrutiny. Every six months, the president’s slaves
would travel back to Mount Vernon or would journey with Mrs. Washington outside the boundaries
of the state. In essence, the Washingtons reset the clock.” Washington supported policies that protected
slave owners. In 1793, Washington signed the first fugitive
slave law, which allowed fugitives to be seized in any state, tried and returned to their
owners. Anyone who harbored or assisted a fugitive
faced a $500 penalty and possible imprisonment. In 1796, Ona Judge, the Washingtons’ 22-year-old
slave woman, escape from Philadelphia. This was provoked by Martha Washington’s
plan to give Ona Judge away as a wedding gift to her granddaughter. President Washington and his agents pursued
Judge for three years but managed to avoid re-capture for the remainder of her life. Should you mention that George Washington,
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin owned slaves and at least in one case did something
a lot worse than just owning the slave, the nationalism ignites in the hearts of many
Americans, and their figurative pitchforks and torches are brandished. Bad arguments like “it was a different time,
and that's what people did back then” ignore the contributions of abolitionist activists
in that period and the fact that by the time the United States abolished slavery, it was
already abolished in much of the western world, making the US a real johnny-come-lately in
the great experiment in “treating people like human beings.” It also ignores the fact that owning slaves,
like all exploitation to this day, was predominantly the domain of the wealthy and that the vast
majority of Americans did not own slaves. But the Founding Fathers? Oh, yes. Quite a few did. The consequences of mythologizing these men
and obfuscating their crimes with propaganda are numerous. For one, it glorifies “traditionalism”
which has the byproduct of political conservatism and even reactionary politics. For another, it helps obfuscate how the effects
of slavery are still being felt today due to generational wealth. The descendants of slave-owners profit from
that inherited wealth and are therefore born into the upper class, and the descendants
of slaves, having far less or no generational wealth, are born into poverty. For another still, mythologizing the founding
fathers as “great men” is an argument for constitutional constructionism, a position
of seeing the United States constitution as a perfect document that can only be interpreted
literally and within the confines of the time it was written. No new rights or privileges can be awarded
under a strict constructionist interpretation. For yet another still, mythologizing and deifying
the founding fathers leads to the legitimization of the comically ridiculous argument of “What
would the founding fathers think?” when confronted with marginalized people gaining
new rights and consideration under the law. Whenever there is progress, someone says “What
would the founding fathers think?” and everyone is forced to pretend this is a real argument
or else be labeled un-American. Returning to “Lisa the Iconoclast” and
her speech at the end, is Springfield really better off ignorantly believing that Jebediah
Springfield was a great hero? Has his myth really brought out the best in
everyone? The lesson Lisa is meant to learn in this
Frank Capra style ending is that even though she finds freedom in the truth, others might
not. And that's a fair bit of knowledge itself...except
that ignorance and mythology about the past often limits the freedom of people. It is something to keep people less free. Coddling Americans about what the United States
really was and really is does a disservice to the people who are harmed by this ignorance. Lisa doesn't want to hurt the feelings of
Americans, but what about the feelings of those who suffer because of this mythology? The parade is filled with soldiers whose pride
is intertwined with that of Jebediah Springfield. National mythology and an unearned feeling
of righteousness allows conflicts to rage across the world un-protested by a people
who assume their people must be the good guys. Their mythology tells them so. The episode chastises Lisa in the end for
being, well, a spoilsport and has her change her mind to let the audience know the message
of the story. But Lisa was right in the first place, before
she changed her mind. A community is not better for deifying their
leaders, their founders, mythologizing their past. It's propaganda that is time and time again
used for political goals, often against marginalized people. Your comfort is not more important than the
truth if the lie is weaponized to hurt people. Maybe if you see America only a series of
parades, nobody is being harmed, and on that day, all was well, but what about every other
day? From the aforementioned book An Indigenous
Peoples' History of the United States: “How then can US society come to terms with its
past? How can it acknowledge responsibility? The late Native historian Jack Forbes always
stressed that while living persons are not responsible for what their ancestors did,
they are responsible for the society they live in, which is a product of that past. Assuming this responsibility provides a means
of survival and liberation.”
The video that got me hooked on Renegade Cut.
really good!
funny enough I had an argument...I think maybe in this sub... about what's up with Americans and the Columbus thing. I mean, we all know about him but in Latin America.... he is just the dude that did it first. There were like 50 similar travels in the next decade or two.
I guess there is this innate "american" thing about being first ? I don't know, it is weird.
Growing up with american cartoons, that always sounded weird.
"Your comfort is not more important than the truth if the lie is weaponized to hurt people."
I recently did a video that might be of interest to folk who like this. It was an argument against patriotism with particular reference to settler colonial and imperial states which you might enjoy if you like this one https://youtu.be/f5HyKELG46M
I like this guy's work a lot, I just wish homie had some jokes. He's so earnest and serious. Chuckle it up, Renegade!