Jfk Help! (1 Viewer)

[ilovezacattard2]

Does anyone have any background info in Arthur Schlesinger, Hersh, Sorsen or Thomas C Reeves?

I have the cliche internet bio's like they wrote this they were born here. but I need info about their relationships with JFK and personal stuff etc.

thanks. x

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

Briefly;

Reeves
Who is the historian and what is the purpose?
He's an academic historian and a renowed biographer. He reinterpreted traditonalist views on what he described as 'apersonal journey'.
He's critical of Kennedys character and morality, especially focussed on the issue of integrity and security in Kennedy's private life and forgein affairs.

Why have approaches to history changed over time?
Theres an approx 30 years time lapse between traditionalists and Reeves. From the changing nature of events like vietnam and the watergate scandal of the 70's, there was increased cynisism and lack of confidence and trust in the public office.
Post cold war climate under george bush snr allowed for his revisionist views on kennedys private life.

how has the history been constructed?
chornologically and thematically, biographical approach. evidence used to support central polemic that kennedys poor moral character undermined his presidency
access to the kennedy library was restricted by the kennedy family . applies traditional methods of historical research using documentary, oral and secondary sources. extensive footnotes.
critical of kennedys character and his use of integrity.

hersh
who are the historians and what are their purposes?
award winning investigative journalist.
aimed to expose the 'truth' behind politics and shatter myths
entirely critical and negative view of kennedy that showed the dark side only.

why have approaches to history changed over time?
again, context. lapse of 30 years. same as for reeves.
social climate right for publication of radical revisionist views.
made no mention of his predecessor reeves. why not?
publish or perish? money?

how has the history been constructed?
chronologically and thematically. central polemic to show the dark side and none other of kennedy.
availability to evide. journalistic approach with interviews and often questionable sources.

Sorenson
Who are the historian and what are their purposes?
special advisor and close friend to kennedy. kennedys speech writer, not a historian.
liberal, consenus view. established with schlesinger the camelot myth, to write 'the memoir kennedy never wrote'

how is the history constructed and recorded?
biography and personal memoir
rhetorical and hagiographic features typical of a speech writer.
exaggeration and ommision to suite purpose

why have approaches changed over time?
context- written only two years after kennedys death
camelot consenus view shaped by close personal relationship and closeness to events

tale of personal growth
sympathetic, positive view.

 

[ilovezacattard2]

THANK YOU SO MUCH!

that was so helpful. I feel like I've been taught nothing in class.

thanks so much for your help

 

[sleepy12]

could anyone give me any help with dallek or schlesinger?
i'm finding the background so difficult to find..

 

[Ajihood]

Schlesinger is similar to Sorenson above

He was advisor of Latin Affairs to JFK (So if critical of JFK in B of P and Missile crisis he would be critical of himself and the role he played) Liberal tradition
He released his history a year after JFK died, people where not ready to be critical of his actions and role
Find the preface of his book it raveals much about his Aim/purpose, methodology and Context.
He did not write a "history", he wrote done the "facts" so it may be use to hisotrians in the future (Actually says that in preface)
He does not include references or footnotes - context - people involeved and still alive
His aim is to celebrate, to show a great pres that got cut done before his time.
Does not deal with womanising and little with health. The only bit he does demonstate is that is made him a better pres out of the experince - not negative as Hersh does it.

Dallek gives a balanced view. By the time of publication, 2003, both extreme views had been done, he wants, and the public to know, the real man. Has huge access to wide range of sources (pres tapes, soviet etc) It is this new evidence is why he wrote the history as he thinks it will give a more balanced view on him. He does not want to write another debunking book but a solid historical work (Extensive and exhasutive research conducted - no heresay or Might have beens as Hersh) Has hisroy teacher conext and written many books on other preses (Nixon, Truman etc) and thus does not place undue weight on things he does not understand.

There is a alot more but that is all I can think of off the top of my head at the moment. Hope that helps. I think I might go and study this now lol