It's strange how an event that took place now more than half a century ago can still capture the popular imagination. Quite a few people that I know still find World War II, for example, quite fascinating. Also, I know quite a few Civil War buffs, and that was pretty much a century and a half ago.
The thing with those two events, is that they were actually a series of events. World War II and the Civil War both had causes, and they had both been boiling up for some time before open hostilities broke out. People may be fascinated by particular aspects of either war, without being fascinated by others. For example, I have a friend who builds models and reads books on the Pacific War of WWII, but he focuses little on the European war.
But those two events are different, precisely because they were not merely restricted to single events. The Civil War may have begun with Fort Sumter, but it certainly did not end there. Gettysburg may have been the biggest and bloodiest battle, but there was still plenty of the war left to fight afterward. Civil War buffs may be fascinated with either side, may be fascinated with particular battles, or living conditions, or the leadership of Lincoln, or the issue of slavery (and racism more generally), or may be fascinated with the idea that the South actually seceded and, for a short duration, became the Confederate States of America. Similarly, World War II buffs may be fascinated with the rise and/or fall of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, or may be fascinated with the ultimate rise of the United States and the Soviet Union to superpower status by war's end. Their could be a fascination, albeit a morbid one, with the Holocaust, or the persecution that became so commonplace, both in Europe and in Asia. The fascination could be on particular battles, such as Stalingrad or, more generally, the Eastern War between Germany and the Soviets, or perhaps D-Day and the Western campaign. Perhaps there could be a fixation on the individuals that were the most prominent players, such as Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill, DeGaulle, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, or Hirohito. Perhaps it was with generals, such as Patton, Eisenhower, MacArthur, or Rommel. Perhaps it could be on the lightning quick changes to the maps of the world, from beginning to end, and everything in between. In both the Civil War and World War II, war buffs could be understandably fascinated with military strategy throughout.
My point is that those two events, which remain hugely fascinating for many people, were not actually singular events. They each were chapters in history, rather than single events in one defining moment.
Contrast that with another event that has remained an endless source of fascination, but which in and of itself lasted a mere seconds. The Kennedy Assassination occurred in a flash, almost literally. Within seconds after the presidential motorcade reached Dealey Plaza in Dallas, the event was over. Unlike the Civil War or World War II, very few people (perhaps only those responsible) saw this coming. No maps changed as a result. There was no war that broke out, no famous battle or anything. Just one man was struck down.
So, why do so many people still fixate on this one event?
Because it symbolized so much. It was the beginning of the end of an era for America, which at that point, was enjoying a privileged status in history that no other country in world history had enjoyed. Kennedy symbolized, in a very real way, the American Dream itself, and his being gunned down then symbolized the beginning of the end of that dream. The seeming cover up that followed marked the end of a certain innocence, the belief (more widespread then than it ever has been since) that the government still worked more or less, as was of the people, by the people, and for the people. The very notion that it was apparently some kind of conspiracy set off all sorts of theories, probably too numerous to mention by this point. In the short few months since the 50th anniversary of this event, I have either watched videos or read articles (or both) that suggested all sorts of different theories. Some suggest irrefutable proof, and usually, these are the ones that you want to approach most carefully. Some self proclaimed experts will tell you with absolute certainty that the limo driver did it, or that one specific individual (who's identity is always known) did it, even admitted to it. Most people assume that someone fired from the grassy knoll. One crazy scenario that I heard had it that the limo driver fired the kill shot, and that Governor Connelly then fired a shot at the driver, killing him, and that this was all one big cover-up since. I have heard theories that no more than three shots were fired (the official story of the lone gunman), and on the other extreme, that up to eleven shots were fired. And, of course, a number of different stories about who was responsible, from the Cubans (both anti-Castro and pro-Castro - each for their own reasons), the mob, the CIA, the military industrial complex, Jimmy Hoffa, Lyndon Johnson, some kind of mixture of the previously listed, and, of course, back to the official account that Oswald acted alone.
All of this from one single event, on one particular day, in one particular city, in one particular plaza in that city. The event itself, the killing of JFK, did not last more than a few seconds.
Obviously, though, the ramifications have been very, very wide indeed.
And here's something that I myself have discovered since, for the first time really in my life, exploring this subject on my own: it can be addicting. There are just so many theories out there, and so much evidence, much of it quite convincing, for each scenario. At times, it looks indeed like a strong case can be made that Oswald, and Oswald alone, did it. Most of the time, for me, this seems most unlikely (but never quite impossible). At times, the various scenarios for the CIA, Lyndon Johnson, the mob, etc.., seem to be quite compelling cases.
Also, what about all of the mysterious occurrences that took place in and around that day? The man with the umbrella? The man who had a seizure, distracting the police, and then disappeared without a trace? What about Oswald reportedly eating his lunch and not being anywhere near the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository at the time of the actual shooting, but only learning of it after the fact? Why did the motorcade slow down to such low speeds at that particular stretch of Dealey Plaza? How do you explain the three hobos who looked all too well-dressed and clean shaven to be hobos, and yes, were released without being questioned? If Oswald did it, why did he not take the shot when the motorcade was approaching the Texas School Book Depository building, or directly under it, when the shots would have been far easier than the ones that he allegedly took once Kennedy was getting further away? Is it even possible that someone, even an expert marksman, could have taken the shots that Oswald supposedly took, in the time that he took them, and inflict as many wounds on two men, the way Oswald did, according to the official storyline? Why wasn't Oswald's interrogation recorded, when this was standard protocol? How could the autopsy report have been throw out or lost? How could JFK's brain have gone missing from the National Archives?
So many unanswered questions. So much mystery surrounding this one, singular event that was over within a matter of seconds.
I don't know that we will ever know the full truth of what happened, and who was behind it.
But it seems clear enough (to me) that it was some kind of a conspiracy. I mean, there are just too many coincidences, too many strange explanations that defy one's gut feeling, such as how Kennedy flew backwards after the final shot that blew part of his head off, and how Jackie climbed out of the back seat and to the trunk to pick up a piece of his brain. Also, how JFK's brain went missing from the National Archives - how does that even happen? What about the three hobos that were far too well dressed and clean shaven to actually be hobos? Why were people running towards the grassy knoll (one person answered this fairly well, suggesting that it was from up there that they could view the motorcade continuing on to the hospital, which was not far away). Why would so many people hold such strong skepticism towards the official account of the event in the form of the Warren Report? That so many documents went unreleased for decades, and some remain unreleased to this day, over half a century after the event. Hell, even the Zapruder film was not released until well over a decade after the event! There is just so much secrecy around this one event, and you have to wonder why, don't you? Why wouldn't the government release more info if they were completely innocent, given that there is so much skepticism that remains right up to the present day?
Just too many coincidences.
The thing about John F. Kennedy, and on many levels, the Kennedys as a family, was that they epitomized success. Americans felt that this was a family that best represented them, and/or what they strove to be. Here was a relatively young man with boyish good looks, who was intelligent and confident, witty and successful beyond most people's wildest imagination. He had a beautiful and intelligent wife, and together, they started a good-looking family as well. And he was the President of the United States at a time when it was the leading superpower in the world, and by far. He occupied the highest office in the land and, indeed, probably the world. People loved him, too. John F. Kennedy symbolized the success of the United States itself, and the United States, in turn, seemed to adore the Kennedys.
And then, just like that, it was over. In a matter of seven or so seconds, the youngest man ever to be elected President, was killed. The official account suggested that it was the act of a lone gunman. But there were too many question marks, and too much evidence of something beyond the official story. Americans did not accept the official account. And this, in many ways, was the beginning of people not only turning away, but of outright growing skeptical of anything that the government did or claimed.
What might have remained of the Kennedy legacy, and youthful hope for the world, was jolted once again when Robert F. Kennedy, fresh off the success of having won the Democratic California primary, was gunned down, like his brother. With political leaders and civil rights leaders like Medgar Evars, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, Jr. having also been assassinated, with the Vietnam War growing more and more unpopular over time, and with, again, official government accounts of what was going on being a far rosier picture than reality suggested it was, skepticism grew more than ever.
What little remained of the ideology and high hopes for a better future that had existed in the early sixties was being rapidly killed off, literally and figuratively, as the sixties came to a close. There were still the hippies, of course, and Woodstock took place in the summer of 1969, while a man walked on the moon that same summer, fulfilling President Kennedy's goal. With man reaching the moon, and then returning successfully back down to Earth, was the fulfillment of a dream, and ended the space race of the fifties and sixties, while some of "the sixties" still remained with popular culture after Woodstock, many cite the Altamont Speedway Free Festival in December that year as the true end of "the sixties". It had begun with high hopes, and some considering it the Woodstock of the West. But the concert ended in tragedy, and what was supposed to be a peaceful and enjoyable concert turned out to be a disaster, instead, bearing no resemblance to Woodstock whatsoever. And so, just like that, the sixties were over.
I just also want to add one note. My impressions of JFK have altered, and quite considerably at that, over time.
When I was a kid, the older generations (my parents generation, as well as that of my grandparents) spoke of those days of "Camelot" quite longingly. Everyone seemed to remember those times fondly, and so I assumed that he had been an incredible president, highly successful.
But there came a point, probably right around the time that Bill Clinton became the Democratic nominee in the 1992 election, when I viewed Kennedy with a lot more suspicion - particularly because Clinton reminded me of him. Suddenly, Kennedy seemed like basically the model for all slick politicians to come. A mere illusionist, covering up a darker truth, and the seemingly unsavory facts that had regularly been coming out at that point just cemented that further.
And for the most part, that was how I viewed Kennedy, until the approach of the 50th anniversary of his assassination. It was at that point that I took another look at Kennedy and his presidency, and began to have a less cynical, more favorable opinion of his years in the White House.
Fact of the matter is, like them or not, the Kennedys truly did seem to want what was best for Americans. Yes, they are a very rich and powerful family. But then again, so are the Bushes, and look at what they do with their power while in office! John F. Kennedy, while indeed a political pragmatist, nonetheless effected some positive changes. And also, I am not sure that he can fully be separated with what he came to represent at the time: namely, the successful image of the United States itself.
In my own lifetime, we have had perhaps one (and only one) such individual emerge to take the White House. That was back in 2008, when Barack Obama seemed to inject hope for a new future, and a positive direction for the country. Now, I'll admit, I did not personally believe in all of that. I am not a conservative Republican, but neither am I a Democrat. In fact, I believe that the two major parties are the problem, and so was skeptical that Obama could live up to the hype. Indeed, it did not take long for people to realize that he never would, either. Yet, for that short period of time leading up to the election, then that time when he was President-elect, and finally, the first few months actually in office. For a little while, people were referring to the Obama family as "Bamelot".
Again, though, that did not last long. Some people love him still, true. But most people have lost the illusion, and recognized that he is just one more self-serving politician with little, if anything, to really provide in the way of "hope and change". In other words, he is more of the same. He represents an America that is on the decline, stagnant, and devoid of any real new ideas on how to better itself.
Kennedy, by contrast, represented what was best in the United States, and inspired young people with hopes and dreams of a better future to act towards creating that future. Kennedy was the first President to seem comfortable with having the elite ranks of American artistic and intellectual community in the White House - and he seemed completely in his element in so doing! He dared the country to get man to reach the moon, and bring him safely back to Earth - a challenge that Americans ultimately met! He wanted the United States to be a powerful force for good around the world, and to that end, he established the Peace Corps. He worked towards measures to fight poverty and end official segregation, although he never was able to complete this work, and many (myself included, at times) have expressed skepticism about his ability to effect change in these fields, as well as how committed he actually was to engage in these fights.
In short, Kennedy allowed Americans not just to believe in, but to strive towards being a better country - and that, at a time when the United States was the world's golden boy, when the state of affairs here could not have been much better, frankly. For that, if nothing else, he deserves a tremendous amount of credit in my book!
And we haven't seen a presidency quite like his, before or since!
Here is a link to a very seriously informative documentary all about the Kennedy Assassination, and which follows a number of leads to the possible ulterior motives behind it. It suggests by implication a certain scenario towards the end, which may or may not be true. But whether you accept this or not, this is a very informative documentary, one of the best that I have seen on the subject. I'm surprised that it is not more famous than it is, because the level of journalism here seems very serious. It's almost amazing that they got as much information as they did. You can tell right away that it is from the seventies, and it has clips of the Kennedys, and a couple of the confrontations that they got in, from earlier in their career - well before JFK ever occupied the White House. Again, I warn you, this is not a "glamorous" documentary, but it is serious journalism, and provides a hell of a lot of information on Oswald, as well as many other possible players in the assassination. I recommend watching it, whether or not you agree with it:
The Killing of President Kennedy (very rare 1978 BBC documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxUl4SL5U8A
Members Only: "MacNeil/Lehrer on the JFK Assassination"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfEwPBmTF5A
THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS SHOWN ON "GOOD NIGHT AMERICA" (debut for American people to view the video of the assassination):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxCH1yhGG3Q
SHOCKING: Video unreleased JFK assassination:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-LA0ypFXig
JFK Assassination Magic Bullet Computer Recreation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA
*Beyond Conspiracy - Kennedy assassination
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM
Zapruder film, Muchmore film, Orville Nix, Mark Bell, Tina Towner, jack Daniel, Dorman film
Testimony Of Mrs. John F. Kennedy
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/kennedy.htm
The Testimony of John B. Connally
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm
Tape of J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon B. Johnson discussing the shooting, continually referring to whoever shot Kennedy as "they", rather than him (as they would have, presumably, if Oswald acted alone):
http://www.all-kvn.ru/video?watch=UVVTMlNiUW4yN0k%3D
Some quotes on the Kennedy Assassination:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_Assassination_Quotes_by_Government_Officials
JFK Assassination: One Month After JFK’s Murder, Former President Harry Truman Called For Abolishing The CIA" by Joseph Lazzaro, January 13, 2014:
http://www.ibtimes.com/jfk-assassination-one-month-after-jfks-murder-former-president-harry-truman-called-abolishing-cia
JFK assassination anniversary: A private conversation between LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover by Shirley Jahad | November 22nd, 2011:
http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/11/22/30001/jfk-assassination-anniversary-private-conversation/
No comments:
Post a Comment