I don’t really think that he is, but I’m not sure there’s a way to demonstrate which of us is right about this.
Sure, it’s the “go-to” for when someone wants to tell a story about the Cold War almost going hot, but how interesting is that story to people who were mostly born after the Cold War? I think the real question isn’t “how often does the Cuban Missile Crisis get depicted in mass media,” it’s “How often does it get depicted in mass media versus his assassination?”
I was born in 1983. I have about the same level of knowledge about both of these events, which is to say, not much at all. I know that people were freaked out when the President was killed (understandably) and I know that people of the time, particularly children, were mentally scarred from the imminent threat of nuclear war. I would say culturally I have a better understanding of The Cuban Missile Crisis, but as to what happened after that, how it unfolded in historical context, no idea. I am interested in history but I never seen to be able to retain what I learn. But the image of a small child huddled under a desk stays with you.
Besides McKinley, there is Lincoln. Is his life/presidency defined by his assassination? Like Lincoln, the fate of the U.S. hung directly in the balance - not simply as a theoretical threat - during JFK’s term in a way that few other presidents before or after ever had to deal with. The (so-called) Cuban Missile Crisis was the first time in history when two nuclear-armed nations came to the brink of war. That precedent ensures that those who actually know something about history will never let the assassination overshadow the rest of JFK’s life or term (I neglect consideration of those who don’t know history because their views are necessarily based on ignorance).
Also, to a greater extent than any of his predecessors, JFK’s image before and during his presidency was manufactured to hide his considerable flaws, e.g., his (probable) failures during the PT-109 incident, drug addiction and adultery. His debate with Nixon was the first of the modern TV era and hugely influential in terms of the lessons it provided for future presidential aspirants, most especially: image supersedes substance. Given he was, at best, a mediocre president – I would rank him lower – the disparity between his actual character and projected image may ultimately come to define him at least as much as his assassination.
I’m not sure someone dying exactly the way you’d expect them to die defines them. Dale Earnhart died during a race. Actually not that unusual considering the sport. How does that change how you see the person? Again, this is supposed to be deaths that change our perceptions, not just “I remember how this person died.”
On the other hand, you probably remember Heath Ledger more for the Joker and the gay cowboy, yeah? That’s what comes to my mind when I hear his name, anyway.
I agree with Miller. That’s similar to my reaction to Earnest Hemingway. Apparently his suicide was a huge deal to people who lived through it. But to me, he’s just a dead white man who wrote some classic dead-white-man literature. I wasn’t aware of how he died. (i would have guessed booze.) But i enjoyed his books when i had to read them in high school.
Miller is saying the opposite though. Now Hemingway was an author so he has “work” that survives him whereas some of these figures really don’t.
But we can’t dismiss people’s subjective experience from the historical record. Princess Di for example. Was she historically impactful other than her image? Not really. But her image and fame was a real thing. If some more minor, less popular royal has the same death it wouldn’t have gotten the same level of attention. So it’s not the death itself, it’s who died.
With JFK, the waving away of the Cuban Missle Crisis is just wrong. It’s “I didn’t experience it so it doesn’t matter.” Well over time we can say that about anything. Everything eventually fades away, even things like the Holocaust. All of those people would be dead by now, so it doesn’t matter, or so many words. That’s inappropriate. Other than what went on during his actual term, JFK was experienced a certain way by a fair number of people. He had a level of popularity. It’s not just all about elections. Nixon won a landslide in 1972, but that does not indicate he was personally popular or some sort of icon. Because the subjective experience of the time does not indicate that. We get into trouble when we start waving things away like this. Even, or especially, negative people like Hitler or Trump. How people experienced them, even if you don’t like the people that liked them, matters. Even if it was subjective to their times.
For me it is kind mixed together with ledger --playing The Joker and his death go hand in hand because he won the Oscar for the role posthumously.
No, I’m not.
I think Miller and i are saying the same thing. What you have personally lived through affects the relative importance of someone’s death and what they did before that. To you. Because this is intrinsically subjective. And also, there might be broad assumptions you could make based on people’s ages.
Yes, but it’s Captain Oates people can quote! And it’s literally all most people know about him.
“I am just going outside and may be some time”.
True but he wasn’t famous during his life time was he? Scott was a fairly well known explorer before his death even if he is far more we’ll known for how he died?
You’re quite right. I was forgetting the actual OP.
I can’t remember where I read this, but apparently some people believe that Captain Smith, who was about 60 years old at the time, may have been in the early stages of Alzheimer’s, a disease that had already been identified and named. He’d always had a sterling reputation, which was why he was selected to head the Titanic’s crew, but in retrospect, people who sailed with him on his last few voyages said that he was making very strange decisions, which he would change after being questioned.
I think you paint Donald Campbell and his fame into way too tight a corner, with all too black and white a palette. “All of which is only…”
I was never into car racing - I even started driving myself only at around age 30. But I was into popular science. You couldn’t read a popular tech / mech book or magazine without seeing Special Features on the land speed records, and the history thereof. No matter how brief, Campbell would be mentioned.
There are millions of tech / mech -oriented nerds like me. No need to belong to the smallest minority in the world, who have the means and the will to actually attempt world speed records, or even hang around the guys.
As of not much of a scene - any time anyone comes up with a possibility of attempting a new land speed record, it’s front line news in the auto / tech sites, to this day.
Yeah, whoever heard of the obscure La Bamba and Lou Diamond Phillips?
Same thing happened to my grandmother. She was 82.