History Extension (2007) | Section II

Question 2 (25 marks)

The purpose of history is

To what extent does Bickerton’s view apply to at least ONE area of
properly to understand the debate from your chosen case study?
past, and most often this
means tackling accepted Identify your case study at the beginning of your answer.
interpretations head-on.
CHRIS J BICKERTON,
February 2006 History is a discipline that is ever-changing and evolving through a
variety of factors, hence requiring for it to be constantly revised to depict
a more enriched understanding of the past. This is corroborated by Bickerton, for the purpose of history truly is
to fill in the gaps of, and thus to better “understand the past”. This can only be achieved through consistent
reflection upon historiographical works and taking the initiative to “[tackle] accepted interpretations head-on” as
this will allow new interpretations to arise which may be highly valuable or more nuanced in the face of
changing contexts and the nature of evidence. This notion is highly applicable when considering John Fitzgerald
Kennedy’s (JFK) multiple constructions in dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis (CMC) in 1962 and insights
into his public and private character. The proliferation of new evidence, the changing zeitgeists and overall the
disparate identities of different historians have contributed to Kennedy being depicted in multifarious ways,
which involve a hagiographic depiction posited by Schlesinger, an acerbic portrayal from Hersh, and finally a
more humanised reconstruction by Dallek and other Post-revisionists. This demonstrates how our quest to
“properly understand the past” is composed of constant revisionism which requires previously “accepted
interpretations” to be consumed and interpreted within a different context and by different identities. Therefore,
it is inevitable that all historical interpretations will be “tackled” as exhibited, which reinforces that in order to
address the gaps and therefore have a more nuanced understanding of the past, historians must attempt to do so
“head-on” and properly, hence reinforcing the significant extent to which Bickerton’s view applies to this
debate.

Bickerton’s statement alludes to the fact that “accepted interpretations” must be re-investigated and “tackled” in
order for consumers to better understand the past. This requires a historiographical foundation that had been
established on the historical subject, as exhibited by Arthur Schlesinger’s hagiographic and quixotic portrayal of
JFK within A Thousand Days (1965), which is a product shaped by the drastic political context of the Cold War,
JFK’s assassination in 1963, and also his close affiliations and aligning liberal ideals with the president.
Schlesinger’s perpetuation of the Camelot myth is highly evident in his constant glorification of JFK’s
mannerisms when managing the CMC for “throughout the crisis he coolly and exactly measured the level of
force necessary to deal with the level of threat”, hence further emphasising his consistently glamorous character.
This will later on be met with much controversy by Revisionist historians which will prompt him to write
another preface in 2002 to address this, further highlighting how our desire to understand the past inherently
involves us challenging established ‘facts’ and ideas to gain new perceptions.

One such historian who sought to challenge this perpetuated Camelot myth was Seymour Hersh within his book
“The Dark Side of Camelot” (1997), therefore further reaffirming Bickerton’s statement. Written almost three
decades after JFK’s dealing of the CMC and assassination, the 1990s saw a developing suspicion towards the
US government due to the release of classified documents such as the Pentagon Papers (1971), the Watergate
scandal and the cessation of the Cold War. This drastic change in context and societal values, in tandem with his
background as an investigative journalist and personal disconnect from Kennedy, would have subsequently
increased his desire to inquire to “properly…understand the past”, resulting in what Hersh states led to his “war
with Camelot”. Hersh’s tackling of the pre-existing Camelot myth is evident in his callous description of
Kennedy’s role in the EXCOMM meetings, for he described the formation of EXCOMM as ‘ad hoc’ to avoid a
“congressional investigation into the Cuban intelligence failure”. This is further reinforced in how Hersh had
portrayed JFK as one who delegated their presidential duties in resolving the CMC, for instead of being calm
and decisive as Schlesinger had suggested Kennedy instead “left [the EXCOMM] members to debate in private”
while he went to “reap political gain”. This disparity highlights that history is constantly undergoing revisionism
as a result of changes in context, therefore further instilling differences between historians’ purposes and
methodologies. In contrast to Schlesinger’s desire to transcribe a “personal memoir” and to create a “paper
monument” of JFK, as stipulated by Paul Hogan, Hersh’s identity as an investigative journalist and the sceptical
atmosphere at the time would have influenced his purpose in “helping the nation reclaim some of its history”.
Despite this desire of his to “properly…understand the past”, Hersh’s acerbic descriptions and questionable
methodology needs to be taken into account. Although the understanding of the past requires one to “[tackle]
accepted interpretations head on”, as Hersh had clearly demonstrated, historians must also strive to prevent
extreme personal bias and to undertake a more nuanced approach when doing so. Blatant and critical
assumptions on JFK’s character have been proposed by Hersh in response to the Camelot myth, for “this grand
man…was to a certain extent dehumanised by the privileges that made him who and what he was”. This is a
direct and highly polarised disparagement of Kennedy’s image, which despite being a “tackling of
interpretation”, is something that needs to be justified to a significant extent. In order for historians to “properly
understand the past” and disseminate such enriching history, they must consider the rigidity of their
counterarguments and be prepared to address broader views and anti-theses that may arise by voicing such
unorthodox interpretations, ultimately underscoring how Bickerton’s statement needs to be more holistically
addressed.

This more nuanced application of Bickerton’s statement is demonstrated within Dallek’s An Unfinished Life
(2003). Dallek, being a figure who was also personally disconnected from Kennedy, projects a more moderate
and less polarised portrayal of the President which further elucidates that such a balanced, historical product can
only be derived from having a broader perception when “tackling accepted interpretations head-on”, hence
further reinforcing the relevance of the statement. An Unfinished Life epitomises the ideal, historiographical
product that seeks to “understand the past”, as it is derived from Dallek’s consideration and challenging of a
wide range of source material, including observations from the works of other historians such as Schlesinger
and previously unreleased evidence including Kennedy’s medical records. This is evident when considering
Dallek’s humanisation of Kennedy’s flaws, for despite being an able leader during the CMC, “Without
Kennedy’s Cuban provocations, Khrushchev would have been hard-pressed to justify placing missiles on the
island”. This underscores Dallek’s reinterpretation, deconstruction and refinement of Schlesinger’s perpetuated
Camelot tale of Kennedy having no contribution to the precipitation of the CMC. This new perspective aligns to
that of Hersh’s acerbic portrayal of Kennedy, with the key and vital difference being that Dallek had sought to
‘humanise’ and logically justify Kennedy’s flaws which results in a more nuanced understanding of the past.
The proper manner of such post-revisionist historiographical processes is due to the fact of emerging evidence
regarding Kennedy as mentioned, and also the September 11 attacks which have unravelled the sheer
complexity of national security issues that Kennedy had to face during the CMC. By taking this into
consideration, a more multifaceted and human representation of Kennedy can be manifested which had allowed
Dallek to “penetrate the veneer of glamour and charm to reconstruct the real man”, a pertinent notion that relates
to Bickerton’s statement of “properly understanding history”. The applicability of such a statement to post-
revisionist depictions of JFK is furthered by Surnow’s mini-series The Kennedys, which had provided additional
insight into Kennedy’s character which can account for his actions during the CMC and also his other political
ambitions. To illustrate, Surnow highlights Kennedy’s charismatic and charming image that was fabricated for
the American public – the sinister and pragmatic display of the Camelot man which is something that Hersh had
established since “people loved him too much”. Despite this, contrary to that of Revisionist works, Surnow had
also underscored Kennedy’s innate empathy during his presidential campaign, in which he emotionally revisited
and reminisced over his moments with his older brother Joe Kennedy Jnr. This nuanced, post-revisionist
perspective therefore posits to audiences that by exercising his compassion, Kennedy was able to overcome the
manipulated and manufactured image of a Camelotesque and deified presidential candidate which had been
specifically curated by his father Joe Snr. Thus, this embeds greater insight into Kennedy’s character by
challenging and reinterpreting multiple pre-existing perspectives, therefore underscoring the high extent to
which Bickerton’s statement applies.

Bickerton’s assertion of needing to “tackle interpretations head-on” in order to “properly understand the past”
therefore had been significantly explored and applied to the disparate historiographical depictions of Kennedy
that have emerged. Considering the proliferation and re-assessment of these different interpretations further
expands Bickerton’s statement that in order to “properly understand the past”, one must challenge accepted
interpretations with logic and good research, hence further emphasising the statement’s present pertinence.