kennedy (1 Viewer)

[arls]

Originally posted by K-Lo
hey...i think the man/myth is the camelot school vs what he really was, like how he used charisma and how different historians have created the myth. eg shclesinger and sorrenson created/upheld the myth and hersh attempted to destroy it etc etc whereas public and private was just him and how he used the media like tv debates and stuff. ok im not really making sense...they are sorta the same but i think myth is historical interpretation...
i went to this study day thing and someone asked what the difference was and the guy told us that there is not one specific definition and that we should come up with our own interpretation and define it in the exam....
haha hope that makes sense or helps at all.....my brain is dead from modern today...

haha..! did you got to the sydney uni study day? just cause i was about to define man/myth for whoever asked .... but you've beat me to it! I asked that question at sydney uni lecture day... if thats the one you went to ?>>

 

[SmokedSalmon]

Originally posted by jaNetix
itsnt it abt cuban missiles not bay of pigs??
i understand their related....but i dunno..
im confuzed!!
ohh no..

oh sorry about that Janetix... got them confused
Pm me if you want the actual quotes for cuban missile crisis.
It also wouldn't hurt seeing 13 days. I watched it twice yesterday actually, I found it very interesting. So if anyone is doing Cuban Missile Crisis please watch that movie if you can. It will help you for the exam.

 

[K-Lo]

Originally posted by arls
haha..! did you got to the sydney uni study day? just cause i was about to define man/myth for whoever asked .... but you've beat me to it! I asked that question at sydney uni lecture day... if thats the one you went to ?>>

yeah thats the one...haha thats funny, small world hey

 

[jaNetix]

watched 13 days....very good!...helps put it all into context

does anybody have specific Schlesinger quotes regarding cuban missile crisis?
i got the wrong chapter fromt he book

 

[pranks85]

Originally posted by SmokedSalmon
13 days is a movie.

13 Days was originally a book, written by Bobby Kennedy, that was turned into a movie. Both the book and the movie are extremely dramatic and highly pro-JFK. It's good as an extremist representation of the missile crisis, but poor as an indication of what actually went on.

With Indochina, the main issues upon which you need to focus are the Diem coup and American military involvement.

 

[cadsy48]

Originally posted by jaNetix
yeh i jus figured that out yesterday..
thanks anyways!

any1 doin cuban missile crisis?
wats the main diff. in interpretations...?
coz both say that was his beast time leadership wise...

there are two interpretations..the first is that Kennedy had complete knowledge of everything and that his actions saved america and the world, making him to be this sort of hero who didnt back down...

the revisionists howevewr saythat kennedy was doing secret deals with russia to clear the missiles and compromises were made which resulted in the missiles being removed...this lets the msee kennedy as far from the glorious leader the sympathisers make him out to be

so basically the sympathisers saw him as the hard-ass master who didnt back down...and the revisionists see him as the opposite, doing a secret deal with Russia and complaining that the only reason why the missiles were there is because HIS policies brought them there...hope that answered it

 

[scottish_lass]

My question is on the structure of the kennedy essay.
In my trial i did my main paragraphs comparing different historians veiws of kennedy and put the events (cuban crisis, vietnam, personal life) in these paragraphs...
Is it better to compare historians under paragraphs of events or the way i did it?
help i love question 1 but this is hard!

 

[SmokedSalmon]

Originally posted by scottish_lass
My question is on the structure of the kennedy essay.
In my trial i did my main paragraphs comparing different historians veiws of kennedy and put the events (cuban crisis, vietnam, personal life) in these paragraphs...
Is it better to compare historians under paragraphs of events or the way i did it?
help i love question 1 but this is hard!

Hey did you mean you talked about what Schlesinger thought of Kennedy in one paragraph for all the events and then Sorenson's views in another? But anyway what did you get in ur trial for that section? If it was fine by ur marker then it would be fine for the HSC.
What I'm doing is choosing two areas of debate (or 3 but HIGHLY unlikely). public vs private man and Kennedy's handleing of Cuba. Then I would go through all the different sub topics of these two areas of debate and talk about the different views between traditionalists and revisionists. But separating the traditionalists from revisionists so it doesn't make the essay too messy. i.e. 1 paragraph for the say, family of kennedy with traditionalist views. Then the next would be 1 paragraph of the same topic but with revisionist views. But always showing the clear contrast between the two in most areas. Um understand? lol good luck

 

[frenchy]

I did the private vs public man in my trial and my teacher told me afterwards not to do the public vs private man, because its not a good area to write about for an essay if you want good marks.
So now i got to think of a new area, besides indochina.
Has anyone else been told not to do that area?

 

[SmokedSalmon]

nope. why would your teacher tell you that? Its not true at all. Looking over past paper answers everyone used public and private man (and still got in band 3/4 the highest). So use public and private man if you are good at it. Don't make urself learn something entirely new.

 

[lazybum]

i hate smoked salmon (the fish not you!!)
i aagree what you're saying. i'm mdoiing man and myth , which is basically the same as publiic priivate man. don't go into a totally new area of debate if yyou don't know it!!!

 

[arls]

as if theyre gonna ask for 3 areas of debate??? seriously slackarses if they did! but they sooo wouldnt!

 

[SmokedSalmon]

Anything IS possible arls.
but yeah i highly doubt it. There would not be enough time to write on 3 areas of debate.

 

[pinksugar]

so what kind of structure would be best to use for this essay? talk chronologically about the debates and then add in what the historians thought of them? like..

diem was murdered in the coup of 63... (or whatever! hee hee)
and there is some debate as to whether JFK was or was not aware of his planned assasination. Sources quote JFK as being shocked and horrified at Diem's death but some historians claim he was aware of the plan

something like that? obviously, some actual names would be in there in the exam! but would that be the best layout?!

 

[SmokedSalmon]

pinksugar: For Cuba as an example. I first talk about the topic I am addressing i.e. Bay of Pigs then launch into the traditionalist historians views of Kennedy and contrasting them with revisionist views. So yeah ur correct there

I think if anyone is doing JFK to comment on the type of historians u are using after the intro. Like Schlesinger was a personal advisor and close friend of Kennedy so he depicts him as in a good light, like a very capable president. Also commenting on the decade they were in... Then talking about the revisionists and the reasons for their views on Kennedy.
Would that be a good idea?

 

[Stuwy85]

Smoked salmon u sound like u know the answer to my q.

"Then talking about the revisionists and the reasons for their views on Kennedy."

What are the reasons for the revisionist views on kennedy, i know all about wat they are saying, and i know that the camelot historians are sympathetic through emotion caused by his assasination and by their personal relationship with him but y the negativity from revisionists? is it enough to say that the rise of revisionism, characterised by questioning established historical beliefs, led to the image of kennedy put forward to also be questioned??? or was there some historian only conspiracy relating to some obscure legal act by kennedy to have them all taxed at higher rates. Seriosly though is there a specific reason why revisionists wrote the way they did, aside from their obvious adherence to the conventions and standards of revisionism???

Please help salmon, ur the only one that can

 

[SmokedSalmon]

Hey stuwy85,

Let me stress that not ALL revisionists are extremely negative about Kennedy. As a matter of fact most present a balanced analytical view towards Kennedy i.e. Reeves. I think the negative historians would actually be Seymour Hersh - 'Dark Side of Camelot'.

Anyway, I do believe you are correct about the "rise of revisionism...questioning established historical beliefs" for the changing views of Kennedy. We must realise that we are also living in two different eras. Do you think any historian would be taken seriously of scorning Kennedy's presidency during the 60s? Heck no... Kennedy was this fantastic figure as was shown through the newspapers, televisions, and historians of the time. His presidency was considered the 'golden age'. lol like anyone was going to demean him... no one would buy his/her book!
Of course today, the revisionist historians do not have this problem and can perform any attack they want on this historical figure. And be recognised for it, not brushed aside. As well as having more amounts of resources from the Whitehouse (confidential files no longer confidential). From this evidence and resources the historians can now discover the 'man behind the myth'. Well that is the info. I have on the revisionists.
I hope that answers the question.. meh I'll give the advice line a buzz.

 

[Stuwy85]

that helps a great deal thanks man

just in regards to some revisionists presenting a balanced analytical view, i really dont address this much, like i have points on which camelot and revisionists agree, like the leadership of kennedy in the cuban missile crisis being positive, or that he did rescue men from his sinking ship etc (despite elements of these issues being debated) i have a more kind of black and white view of it.

Basically im saying revisionists think kennedy sucked, except for these few issues where they thought he was ok. Is this alright, will i do particularly badly for saying this? My teacher said it was important to have common points to both schools and so i do, but other than that, massive conflict of opinions.

 

[SmokedSalmon]

no probs stuwy85.

Originally posted by Stuwy85
Basically im saying revisionists think kennedy sucked, except for these few issues where they thought he was ok. Is this alright, will i do particularly badly for saying this? My teacher said it was important to have common points to both schools and so i do, but other than that, massive conflict of opinions.

Thats perfectly fine to address the question that way. Since you have distinguished that not all revisionists are completely against Kennedy is showing your actual interest in the work. Markers like to read a student who bothers to learn about what the types of historians are like... not merely classifying that traditionalists are 'for' kennedy and revisionists are "against' him.

 

[arls]

Originally posted by SmokedSalmon
Hey stuwy85,

Let me stress that not ALL revisionists are extremely negative about Kennedy. As a matter of fact most present a balanced analytical view towards Kennedy i.e. Reeves. I think the negative historians would actually be Seymour Hersh - 'Dark Side of Camelot'.

Anyway, I do believe you are correct about the "rise of revisionism...questioning established historical beliefs" for the changing views of Kennedy. We must realise that we are also living in two different eras. Do you think any historian would be taken seriously of scorning Kennedy's presidency during the 60s? Heck no... Kennedy was this fantastic figure as was shown through the newspapers, televisions, and historians of the time. His presidency was considered the 'golden age'. lol like anyone was going to demean him... no one would buy his/her book!
Of course today, the revisionist historians do not have this problem and can perform any attack they want on this historical figure. And be recognised for it, not brushed aside. As well as having more amounts of resources from the Whitehouse (confidential files no longer confidential). From this evidence and resources the historians can now discover the 'man behind the myth'. Well that is the info. I have on the revisionists.
I hope that answers the question.. meh I'll give the advice line a buzz.

stuwy... on top of what salmon said consider the events of the 60s that caused social change in everyone: (hopefully you did vietnam to understand this!!!)

-decline in cold war tension.............all these lead to sceptism of
-watergate scandal.........................the public towards political
-pentagon papers ..........................leaders
-vietnam war itself!! questioning of political motives
-research had taken place due to the space of time especially look at this if addressig reeves(salmon basicaly covered that although...)


also.. i have a feeling that your focusing a lot on set "schools" of thought. 'revisionist' is a category that classifies a whole heap of historians (even hersh who writes in the late 90's.) so keep in mind that the focus should be on the individual histotian and their specific influences on writing history..... so even the fact that someone is religious or not may effect the purpose of their history on kennedy (direct example of reeves again) or that hersh is a journalist.. etc.

so the short of the long story.... individual influences combined with societal influences shape the perspective of each historian wehn doing kennedy.. which can be summed up as the personal purpose and the audience the historian is catering for..

hope that helps a little.