I don't think you can seriously assert that JFK didn't share the Protestant ethos, or that he didn't share the ethos of the American mainstream even if he was a Roman Catholic. Maybe some reform of this ethos was in the process of making, and then it should not be personalized, but seen as an impersonal process, I think; whether this was going on under an aspect of denomination(al ethics), will forever stay quite arguable.
You could, however, point out that an incongruence of the President and the mainstream ethos was alleged, and then present some sources from 1961 to corroborate. Those sources would surely be criticized on reasons of (bi)partisanship.
If you assume that 85 per cent of the American population, at least symbolically, took part in the conspirational assassination of their president, you might turn to see the assassination as an ostracism, a slip in the choice of means, but an expression of the will of the majority.
Still, you go on to assert (I think correctly) the far-reaching popularity of the president JFK.
I think therefore you have run into some kind of dilemma.
I think you are wrong about the number 85 per cent for 1963 and wrong about the proper usage of the term WASP for today. I think proper usage of WASP today is: don't use it anymore.
I invite truedog or C Kahn to correct me here for both assumptions.
Regards MNI.
PS: I thought you would rather go on to show up how the current situation is, in your view, still connected to that old happenings. Maybe the recent buying of the Zapruder film fits in your equation? |
