The opposite really. People don't get called a bigot for saying the Lindbergh was a Nazi sympathizer or that Columbus had a bad plan and was only saved by dumb luck. Which is why those facts are much more well known than the facts about Earhart.
A lot of people in history have a reputation that's not at odds with the reality. It's good to question it. If we refuse to, I don't see how we can complain about others being lead astray by false narratives. Unfortunately, questioning some people results in attacks and accusations that are meant to shut the conversation down, hide the truth, and protect the myth.
.. old, bold, is how I've heard it, but i wonder if it's because boldold runs together; because opinion, "bold" is supposed to come before age, "old" in adjective order.
Its possible that the "d" in "old" ends in a soft "u" or "e" sound and that's why boldold presents oddly. English speakers don't like distinct vowel sounds that close together, even ones that don't have letters in the word indicating such. Is that the reason for the rhotal r? I can't remember. The comma between "bold, old" and "no, on your left" feels like a longer partial stop than the one in "old, bold".
It was reckless. The flight was widely popularized by her huckster husband who was motivated to have his wife win him fame and fortune. She wasn’t ready, and in that sense, the attempt was reckless.
If a person takes a big risk and makes it, that’s a success. If a person risks it and dies in the Atlantic, being called reckless seems kinder alternative to being called a failure.
I mean it's also probably because his solo transatlantic flight planning was famously very meticulous, and it was notable because he had started his career more recklessly, but earned a reputation that added 'cautious' to his preexisting reputation of 'capable.'
