Knickerbocker: The Myth Behind New York. By Elizabeth L. Bradley.
Rutgers University Press, 2009, 151+ pp.
This academic review appeared in NEPCA Journal but might be of general interest. I was fascinated by it!
In his 1963 breakthrough novel
Cat’s Cradle, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. coined the term
granfalloon to describe hollow
collectives to which one accidentally belongs. For instance, if you live in
California you are a “Californian” until the day you move to Vermont and become
a “Vermonter.” Such identities are intrinsically meaningless—unless they
mutate. Elizabeth Bradley’s fascinating study of the Knickerbocker identity
suggests that more is afoot when we look at how such terms are created,
recreated, and appropriated over time. Her book was originally published in
2009, but is back in the Rutgers University Press limelight at a time in which the
larger “American” identity is weakening and Balkanization is ascendant.
Most regional identity terms follow simple grammar rules as
they move from noun to adjective. It doesn’t require much mental effort to
associate an Iowan with Iowa or a Mainer with Maine. It’s trickier when the
adjectives are endonyms, terms used almost entirely by those within a region. Perhaps
you can work it out that a “Toner” resides in Washington State, but you
probably need to live in South Carolina to identify with Sandlapper, or follow
sports to think of Cornhuskers, Tar Heels, and Hawkeyes in the same breath as
Nebraska, North Carolina, and Iowa, as none of those terms are officially
recognized collective pronouns. Sometimes insider terms become official—Buckeye
(Ohio), Hoosier (Indiana), Nutmegger (Connecticut), or Yankee (New England)—but
all such unusual adjectives are called demonyms and, as often as not, their Ur
usage is obscure and spawn theories ranging from logical to fanciful.
Knickerbocker is rare in that we know its precise origins.
It was the pseudonym used by Washington Irving (1783-1859) to perpetuate a great
literary hoax. Irving appropriated the surname of a Rensselaer County Dutch
family to invent Diedrich Knickerbocker, a deadbeat historian whose manuscript
Irving “discovered” in a New York City hotel room from which Knickerbocker fled
before settling his accounts. Irving fashioned a brilliant publicity campaign
to go with his literary invention; he took out ads stating his intention to
publish Knickerbocker’s manuscript unless he came forth to claim it. Not
surprisingly, Kickerbocker was a no-show and, in 1809, the struggling Irving
made his early reputation with A History
of New York from the Beginnings of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty.
You could learn a lot of this by wasting a few hours on the
Internet. What you’d not learn, though, is the social history and contemporary
sociology associated with Irving’s ruse. Also in Cat’s Cradle, Vonnegut introduced the karass, an intentional network of people connected in significant
ways. Though she does not reference Vonnegut, Bradley shows how the Knickerbocker
has been appropriated in identity-forming ways. Direct Dutch control over its
New Amsterdam colony officially ended in 1665, but the transfer to English
control did not change the fact that the colony’s white population was
predominately Dutch. Nor did the American Revolution and the passage of 144
years alter the fact that those of Dutch surnames and ancestry were
disproportionately distributed among New York’s wealthy families, politicians,
and taste arbiters. Many New Yorkers were amused by Irving’s trickery, but not
all got the joke; some saw the Knickerbocker icon as confirmation of their
assumed social and cultural superiority. Irving’s purpose, of course, was the opposite;
he lampooned Dutch calcification specifically and social airs in general, but Diedrich
Knickerbocker unleashed proved an infinitely malleable demonym.
Bradley titles her chapters “The Picture of Knickerbocker,”
“Inheriting Knickerbocker,” “Fashioning a Knickerboracy,” and “Knickerbocker in
a New Century.” Bradley breezily transforms the Knickerbocker into a synecdoche
for two hundred years of New York history, politics, culture, commerce, and
identity. In effect, one can draw a straight line from the boastful Diedrick
Knickerbocker to the insouciant swagger of today’s New York City dwellers. That
is, the Knickerbocker became New York City’s brand. No wonder those in the 19th
century associated it with everything from bread and buses to “nostalgia and nativism”
(59). And let’s not forget Santa Claus. Through time, the Knickerbocker lost
some of its Dutch ethnicity in the American melting pot, but there were always Roosevelts,
Van Rensselaers, and Vanderbilts to drop hints; German and Dutch brewers to
lubricate myths; and basketball heroes, place names, and the mystique of the
Big Apple to suggest that Gotham speaks a Dutch dialect. Moreover, as Bradley
reminds us, no city comes close to New York in capturing imaginings of the
essence of the United States. Never mind that little of this looks like the
frontispiece from Irving’s 1809 satire; myths have enormous power even when
their veracity is in doubt—just as an intentional karass is generally more empowering than an accidental granfalloon.
Rob Weir
University of
Massachusetts Amherst