DiBonaventura, Luke “The Apotheosis of Lies”

On December 3, 1864, Greek-Italian artist Constantino Brumidi began work on The Apotheosis of Washington, a fresco painting designed for the canopy of the newly completed Rotunda in the United States Capitol. For the next eleven months, Brumidi ascended and descended the scaffolding 180 feet up in the air. The U.S. was in the midst of Civil War during this time and would see the surrender of General Lee and the assassination of President Lincoln all within the single month of April (1865). Despite the turmoil and change in leadership, Brumidi worked diligently, filling in the 4,664-square-foot canopy in a remarkable amount of time. Congress agreed to pay a total of $40,000 for his work, nearly double the president’s salary at the time (“Painting the Apotheosis” 123). The Apotheosis of Washington depicts George Washington, the first president of the United States, ascending to the heavens and becoming a god, surrounded by various figures of classic mythology. Along the perimeter are allegorical representations of six concepts, “War,” “Science,” “Marine,” “Commerce,” “Mechanics,” and “Agriculture” (Brumidi). 

It is difficult to describe the visceral nature of seeing the piece in person. Gazing up at the detailed and symbolically dense artwork surrounded by the ornate architecture of the dome creates a strange perspective, as though the fresco were a window to the sky itself. While the piece is beautiful, it is hard to shake the feeling that it is out of place. The rest of the Capitol houses statues of historical figures and artwork depicting the history of the U.S. The Apotheosis, on the other hand, feels like something found in the Vatican, not the centerpiece of a government built on the separation of church and state. The entire concept of apotheosis, “the raising of a person to the rank of a god or the glorification of the person as ideal” (“Painting the Apotheosis” 126) feels antithetical to the values the U.S. endeavors to embody. Our past leaders can no longer be people, we have to make them gods. This is not an assessment of whether George Washington is deserving of deification, but rather of our right to make that claim in the first place. Whether it is a decision born out of patriotism or hubris, there is a palpable desire to view and teach figures like the Founding Fathers or Christopher Columbus as embodiments of Judeo-Christian values. This paper explores the intersection between “fairytale” retellings of history and the promotion of Judeo-Christian values.  

  This conversation first came to my attention when Issac J. Bailey, author of the book Why Didn’t We Riot, came to American University to give a talk to the honors and CBRS programs. Bailey was asked a question about how best to handle the positive contributions that controversial/problematic individuals have made to certain movements. Bailey made the argument that it is possible to respect aspects of an individual without having to co-sign all of their beliefs. He used Thomas Jefferson and George Washington as an example for his point saying that he can hold the two truths simultaneously: these men made positive and formative contributions to this country, while also owning slaves. This idea prompted me to ask him a question (I was not planning on asking a question that day). I asked him what his thoughts were on the conservative media organization PragerU promoting the talking point that it is “improper to judge a historical figure by the morality of today?” Bailey had a strong reaction to this question calling that idea “bullshit.” He argued many of the founders, like “Ben Franklin, freed [their] slaves” or knew that slavery was wrong. His final note on my question and the lecture as a whole was poignant and simple, “I don’t need any fairytales about this country” (Bailey).  

Bailey may not need “fairytales” about this country, but it is clear some people do. PragerU is a conservative media organization that garners millions of views online. Their mission is “to promote American and Judeo-Christian values” according to its founder Dennis Prager. Their CEO, Melissa Strait, describes PragerU content as “essential to shaping culture and preserving American ideals” (“About Us”). One of their most recent ventures has been the establishment of “PragerU Kids,” a branch of PragerU dedicated solely to producing content and lesson plans for children K-to-12. PragerU has been an approved educational vendor in several states including Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, and Montana, and is currently making efforts to expand into even more states (Waxman). Addressing PragerU content is necessary now more than ever as it is being viewed in an educational setting by our nation’s youth.  

PragerU Kids produces an animated show targeted at grades 3-to-5 called “Leo & Layla” where a brother and sister travel back in time to meet various historical figures. In one episode the two go back in time to meet Christopher Columbus. It is pertinent to remember that what these historical figures say in these videos is not taken from their own writings or records, but instead are completely made up by the Prager team (no writers are formally credited). For this reason, it is important to view these types of conversations not as a historical figure having a dialogue with Leo and Layla (the surrogate for the audience), but instead as PragerU having a dialogue with Leo and Layla through a ventriloquized version of that figure. This is not Columbus’ argument, it is PragerU’s. When Prager’s Columbus is asked about the issue of slavery, they give this defense: 

There is an insidious side to this talking point as it is often used as a means of handwaving any criticism levied at those individuals. Those making the argument ride off the notion that if a revered figure did something society finds objectionable today, then it must have been acceptable back then, while rarely ever substantiating if those figures received criticism during their time. Thomas Jefferson for instance owned over 600 slaves in his lifetime. Defenders of Jefferson say that this was an accepted practice, ignoring the fact there were strong abolitionist movements in Jefferson’s time. In 1791 for example, black abolitionist Benjamin Benniker sent a letter to Jefferson calling him out on his hypocrisy writing: 

In addition to falling short on a factual basis, the PragerU’s present-day morality argument is also incompatible with their own “Judeo-Christian” values. In their video “What are Judeo-Christian Values?” Dennis Prager identifies several overlapping values between Judaism and Christianity. One of these values is the belief in an “objective moral truth,” meaning that there are clearly defined “goods” and “evils” in the world and that “good and evil are the same for all people” (Prager). The key takeaway here is that Prager believes in an “objective morality,” a universal law that transcends all cultures and times. This objective morality runs contrary to the concept of a “present-day” morality alluded to in the previously mentioned Columbus video. If there are certain unalienable moral truths, then what a society or culture deemed permissible at the time would be irrelevant to whether that action was “good” or “bad.” There is an attempt later on in the Columbus video to address this concern:  

This vagueness is not an oversight, but a deliberate feature. PragerU will not say explicitly that genocide and chattel slavery are objectively evil in their “Leo & Layla” videos, because then they are implicitly calling the figures they are defending “evil.” The only way that PragerU can remain ideologically and theologically consistent on this matter is if genocides and chattel slavery are not considered “objective evils” under their own Judeo-Christian framework. PragerU would never say that, as a morality that condones genocide and chattel slavery would not intuitively appear very moral to most. PragerU’s current framing of the issue absolves themselves from having to pick a side.  

There is an additional irony to the “present-day” morality argument as it is hinged on the concept of “Metaethical Moral Relativism” (MMR), defined in The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as, the belief that “the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons” (Gowans). This is the moral framework Prager’s Columbus draws from when he instructs Leo and Layla to examine “the culture or society” before they “judge.” MMR is diametrically opposed to the Judeo-Christian morality, however, as Judeo-Christians believe in an “objective moral truths.”  

It is clear, when PragerU argues the “present-day” morality talking point they do so from a place of hypocrisy. The only question that remains is, why? Why go through so much effort?  Why contradict your own religious doctrine? Why defend so vehemently such reprehensible behavior? The answer is found in The Apotheosis of Washington. PragerU desires to do the same deification of these figures that the U.S. Congress desired to do for Washington. Our past leaders can no longer just be people, with their flaws and shortcomings, we have to make them gods. Issac J. Bailey can treat these figures as morally complex because he is not concerned with deifying them. For PragerU, treating these figures as morally complex is a direct attack on their deification status. PragerU simultaneously desires to hold Columbus and the Founding Fathers as “good” embodiments of Judeo-Christian morals while also desiring to define those same morals as being against “objective” evils like genocide and chattel slavery. They accomplish this by never explicitly stating what is an “objective” good or evil. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too.  

Despite what some have argued, kids do not need fairytale history. Kids do not need to sort people into the binary categories of “good” or “evil.” Kids do not need to see historical leaders as gods. Kids are smarter than we give them credit for. Those who argue for fairytale history often dismiss the nuance by which kids are capable of understanding the world. It is time to stop worrying about convincing kids that these individuals are gods, because that decision is not up to them. The decision is up to no one, except God himself.