The Art of Myth Promotion

 

There are a few people in history that have done well for themselves in the context of their reputation, self made or not, making themselves into myth more than man.  Oddly, they were already impressive without the fictionalization we have bestowed upon them or they themselves promoted.  Edison, Ford and the old west.

 

Henry Ford was a success in every way.  He was an odd duck with unpopular views depending on the era.  He is the recipient of myth and legend and giant status.  There are things that come from him, and quotes credited to him that he likely never said.

 

In reference to the Model T, which is at the center of three myths, Henry never likely said, “You can have any color you want, as long as it’s black.”  There is one basic reason he would not likely say this, the Model T came in eleven colors.  Not only did it come in eleven colors, but in the first 4-5 years, black was not offered.  So unless Mr. Ford was unaware of his own production, which seems unlikely, he would not have made such a a statement.

 

Another myth is that he sent his engineers to junk yards to examine broken down and warn out model T cars to see what was not warn out in order to make it more cheaply.  There is much evidence for this investigation but not that that exact reason.  Ford manufactured the car as cheaply as possible not to maximize profits but to lower the price.

 

The investigation was to see where costs could be cut to lower the cost of the car to the consumer.  Ford had no need to maximize profits to the extent that he made them poorly, he made over 15,000,000 Model T cars.  And there are still tens of thousands of them on the road today.  For them to be 100 years old and still running, many virtually unmolested or rebuilt, they could not have been made cheaply.

 

The last myth was not likely of his making and likely came after his rise to wealth and fame.  He in fact did not invent or even perfect the production line.  He was the first to apply it to the automobile but far from the first to use the method.

 

The Chinese divided labor into specialized stations on the same object a long time before the industrial revolution that is credited with the production line invention in some circles.  This is a reflection of Eurocentric history writing where Asia is usually not even considered for their contributions to medicine, industry, art, metallurgy or warfare which often preceded Europe by decades to centuries.

 

It’s well documented in the book, Wealth of Nations and was employed in European armories long before Ford and his Model Ts.  As many who have read me may know, I also tend to work from distant to close when discussing how something is wrong or perceived inaccurately.

 

The Springfield Armory in Massachusetts employed production line design and interchangeability of parts long before Ford.  In the time of the Civil War, they so perfected this approach they increased their productivity of Model 1861 rifle by over 300%.  Ford didn’t invent the production line, he was the first to apply it to something as large and complex as a vehicle, which was inevitable.

 

Thomas Elva Edison was a legend of a man.  He was in the middle of the industrial revolution in the United States as well.  He wasn’t the inventor he was purported to be.  Either by his own promotion which is likely, or by others and history, he was a manager of minds, not master of invention.

 

Edison had a great deal of intelligent men working for him.  Edison likely had ideas, and likely inventive ones.  But he himself, managed minds and manipulated perception.  His famous victim was Nikola Tesla.  Many of the electricity claims Edison has been credited with was actually the result of Tesla.

 

His likely most famous invention he is credited with is the light bulb.  He did not invent the light bulb.  His workers invented the marketable light bulb.  He had bought one of hundreds of the existing patents for light bulbs and through many trials, found a way to make the filament last long enough to sell.

 

Edison managed inventors and took credit for their work since the work they did was under his employ, and thus his property.  In a more modern counter example, Walt Disney hired very creative people to put his ideas into realities.  Walt had little idea how, only what he wanted in general.  He hired the people to make his visions work.  We don’t credit Walt with the invention of all the technology within his lands and worlds.  The difference is, Walt promoted his product as a product of Imagineers.  Edison promoted himself.

 

Edison didn’t invent myth or self promotion or ego.  He is simply a modern example that will likely be forgotten over time, to the degree we no longer recall past self promoters as we focus on our more modern examples such as Ford and Edison for now.

 

Another flavor for myth making is one closer to home for me, the wild west.  Billy the Kid, Wild Bill Hickok, Buffalo Bill Cody, The James Gang, Butch and Sundance … they were less than the myth we have manufactured.  Although far from average.

 

The number of kills many of these men have been credited with has been proven to be impossible in most cases.  Not to say they didn’t kill anyone, but the penny and dime novels that largely made the myths, were more fiction than fact.

 

The James Gang was credited with so many bank robberies that they would have had to have a Leer Jet to get from one town to another in order to pull them all off.  Wild Bill was credited with at least one kill that he didn’t perform since it was used as a defense for the man that killed Bill.  The vengeance defense for the killer’s non existent brother.

 

Buffalo Bill’s history was largely written by himself via his Wild West show.  He was accurate for the most part in what he presented and one of the original advocates of the west and it’s native population, but he also had to package the information for his shows so it distorted the perception of the west by making small examples into sweeping generalizations.

 

He is very likely responsible for one of the most ubiquitous myths of the west.  A thrill of the show was a demonstration of gun skill; the main street shootout.  Buffalo Bill invested this, in a traveling show.  It was not a re-enactment of actual events.  Anywhere.  Ever …

 

These are not the real ones …

Butch and Sundance were still being blamed or credited with railroad and bank robberies after they had left the nation. Consider the quality of news reports today, ‘if it bleeds it reads’ is not new. When major cities had sometimes 25 papers and small towns had 2-3, there was much fiction then, more than now.  The quality of reporting in the day is not a historical record.

 

Billy the Kid is probably the most fictionalized, of the old west.  He was brazen and deadly but again could not have been in all the places he was reported to have been and thus not done all the deeds credited to him.  Story telling is an art form.  In many cases it is art of creation rather than accurate reflection.  That’s fine, as long as we understand it to be what it is.

 

A great example of how we don’t know often what is right in front of us, is that for a long time Billy the Kid was assumed to have been left handed.  This is based on the most famous of the photos of him in existence.  Then, photos were on glass plates.  The plate was backwards when it was assumed he was left handed.  He was right handed in reality.  Simple fact turned backwards that historians bent other information to fit into.  Making it all wrong.

 

 

 

There is nothing wrong with myth, The Minnesota Vikings wear a fictional emblem for the Nordic overseas conquerors.  Robin Hood likely never existed, King Richard and his Knights likely didn’t either, although people are digging deep on both of those looking for a basis in reality.  I hope they are found.

 

As long as they are understood as colorizations of modern culture, myth is simply context.  As long as were open to the idea that they may be real, we are open to wonder.  As long as we understand the intent of the teller, we can see through the myth to the man or woman they are built on.

 

Myth is either the colorization of fact or the hope of wonder.  Either is fine.  Just like anything else, accept our larger than life figures as potential myth, or be fooled into a fictional character ourselves based on our unrealistic, albeit fun perceptions.

 

 

You Aren’t Who they Say

 

 

Who are you?  Who am I?  Who determines that?  Why am I asking?

 

The modern era is just amazing.  I remember when DNA was mapped.  I have seen Dolly, ok, not literally, but the time she was announced.  My father has had his DNA read to know his history, and thus PART of mine (we’ll return to this)and we have entered the era of Genetic programming our children, determining to a degree who they are even before they are born.

 

We also live in the era of ancestry.com and the not so modern idea of knowing where we came from.  This comes in handy when determining if we should wear a kilt or lederhosen to the next family dinner.

 

Ads for DNA analysis have taken broad liberty in using words and placing ideas.

Ethnicity is not genetic.  It is not DNA.  Ethnicity is about culture and socialization.  Neither exist in DNA.

 

Nationality and tradition also don’t exist in DNA.

Sorry about the horrible quality …

Was she planning to marry a specific DNA type or was she seeking tradition and physical traits?  Cause the physical traits she can see, and the traditions are not DNA.  This ad is miss leading and as the poster implies, racist.  But racist is in these days so maybe I am the one that’s off on that one.

 

Who we are has little to do with our DNA.  DNA does have to do with how we look to a degree though, so the commercial about Italians and Eastern Europeans, which BTW share many of the same genes, is more about the woman not knowing what an Italian looks like, except …. they don’t all look the same do they?

 

Who we are is alot to do with how we grew up and under what traditions.  If I grew up doing many German traditional things then I am ethnically more German than many Germans who emulate American tradition.  (we’ll also come back to this)

This is misleading.  Kilts and lederhosen are cultural, not genetic.  Lets take a more rational look at genes and DNA.

 

Testing will determine what area of the world our genetic ancestors were most focused in a looooong time ago and how they got the genetic mix we still carry with us today enough to determine were part of that DNA profile.  These genes are not specific. They are focused yes but not specific.  They are also not current.

 

As I mentioned, my father had his DNA run. $100 from National Geographic.  His DNA gave a certain profile, but that is not me. That is only half of me.  Ok, that’s half of the genetic pool I am dipped from.  But the point here is that our DNA is wildly varied.  If I came from four grandparents say … from Samoa, India, Central Africa and Native American, who am I?

 

After getting DNA done what if they determine the one from India emigrated from Scotland?  Am I now Scottish instead of Indian?  If I have a pie chart like in the ads that show I am 27% Native American, 24% Scottish (Indian), 25% Samoan and 24% Central African, does that mean I am Native American and should start living in those cultural identities?

 

Ok, so I have determined I am more Native American than anything else but I grew up in Japan and have lived in their culture my whole life.   I buy a new cell phone every 3 months, drive on the right side, live in a tiny cramped apartment and have learned ALL of the social protocols that come with Japanese culture.  Who am I now?  Am I still Native American or am I Japanese.

 

DNA is not who we are.  The best DNA can do is tell us where our very distant ancestors came from and where in the world they are still more clustered than anywhere else.  In the example above, I am culturally Japanese.  My genes have NOTHING to do with that.  In the above example my DNA is too split to determine who I am, genetically.  Does that mean I am genetically no one?

 

In Psychology we explore how people identify themselves.  We never label or expect someone to fall into a type based on things you can measure.  I have worked with a tall, broad shouldered, very muscular and deep voiced cross dressing genetic man who identified as a woman.  Her DNA/genes say man.  She wasn’t.  Her DNA profile would not tell her who she is, she knows who she is.

 

What if I had CAIS?  Who would I be?  Don’t know what that is?  It is a huge secret that would blow many people’s minds.  Sit down children, I’ll tell you a true story…

 

When a baby is developing in mommies tummy, there is not a sex determined until a while in.  The baby is already forming and making parts that can go either way and both share.  This is why men have nipples, cause they are formed before it is known what sex the baby will become!  So, when the baby needs to determine which sex parts to make, it sends out a chemical into the body called androgen.  Androgen reacts to testosterone.  Both boys and girls have testosterone but at different levels.  The amount of reaction the androgen has, determines if a boy or girl is made.

 

If there is little reaction in the androgen, then that would indicate low testosterone and a girl is made.  A big reaction from the androgen would indicate higher levels of testosterone and a boy is made.  Simple.  But what if the androgen is broken and no reaction takes place at all?  Then a girl is made.  What if that broken androgen is present in a baby with high testosterone and would have been a boy if the androgen was not broken?  Then girl sex parts, mostly, are built on a genetically male body.

 

She would not be transgender, not a cross dresser, not bisexual.  This is CAIS.  Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. Women like her in this example are women in almost every way.  They have breasts and vaginas and can be very feminine.  These women can also be very athletic.  They are often tall for women, broad shouldered, more muscular and have small breasts.

 

Depending on proportions, I just identified two types of women rather well.  Women who would be good in basketball and super models.  They are women. But they cannot become pregnant because they do not have ovaries.  In this example she has X and Y chromosomes. Genetically, she is male.  But she and others look like women and can in rare cases, be the vary definition of female beauty.

 

So tell me, if we cannot even be that right, know women from men, how can DNA identify our cultural identity?  It cannot.

 

Ethnicity is a combination of how we are raised, how we identify ourselves and some of our genes.  I can see myself as another gender but I cannot see myself as taller nearly as easily.  There are limits.

 

I see myself in a way that does not entirely reflect my sisters extensive work in our ancestry.  She has traced our family tree back hundreds of years.  We were present in Colorado for generations and on two of my four lines, predate presence in Colorado before Colorado was a state.

 

One of our lines was present in the country when the western frontier was what we call today, Tennessee.  Ohio and New York and Georgia play prominently in my ancestry as well.  My genes don’t say any of that.

 

My ten god children get a product of my ancestry and my culture.

Who am I?  I am a Colorado Boy who is highly educated and romantic.  I grew up in the DC area and know politics better than most until recently and spent my best years strapped into a welding mask or a five point harness.  I can sing John Denver and Guns and Roses and I am as good with a pen (metaphorically since I write with a keyboard obviously) as I am with a steering wheel.  I have a spirit animal and I don’t fear death nearly as much as I fear water.  I largely raised myself from 14 and have loved passionately.

 

My genes do not reflect any of that.  My genes would show England, Scotland and Germany.  I’m none of those.  My ancestors who helped shape me were American.  I have no Native American genes in me so I cannot claim Native American, but trust me, I wear my Stetson well.

 

Who are you is the question.  Don’t look to DNA or genes to find who you are.  You are who you were raised as combined with who you chose to be.  You reflect how you were raised and by who but mostly, you are who you chose to become, in spite of your DNA.