History Extension (2014) | Section II

Question 2 (25 marks)

Source B

For their part, historians

To what extent is the view expressed in Source B relevant to the historical
either do not have the time debates in your case study?
or the inclination to focus
on the gaps and prejudices In your response, make explicit reference to Source B and at least ONE
in their accounts of the area of debate in your case study. Identify your case study at the
beginning of your answer.
past ... they gain more
rewards and kudos* by
narrating what they think The notion of historians “not [having] the time or the inclination to focus
happened in times gone by on the gaps and prejudices”, although initially evident, has been expressed
than by dwelling on the to a limited extent when considering how representations of President
closures in their texts, the John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) have changed over time. The foundational
gaps in the documentary Camelotesque and hagiographic depiction of Kennedy is a perpetual
historical representation, which had been derived from the desire to inject
record and the ways in
a sense of greatness into JFK’s legacy after his assassination in 1963 and
which they may have thus the national grief of the American people, as evident within
interpreted things Schlesinger’s work. However, it must be noted that these emotional
differently. sentiments, with the benefit of hindsight, had led to historians being
inclined to “[dwell] on the closures in their texts, the gaps in the
OLIVER J DADDOW, documentary record…” and so on. As a result of drastic changes in
cultural zeitgeists and the consequential suspicion surrounding Kennedy’s
Debating History Today, supposedly impeccable image, this had resulted in a period of revisionism
2004 which led to the manifestations of grand criticisms towards JFK’s
representation, as highlighted by Hersh. These two polarised schools are
in turn revisited and revised by post-Revisionist historians such as Dallek, who sought to humanise the president
which can only be achieved by “[interpreting] things differently”, resulting in the construction of a more
balanced and nuanced historical work which “[gains] more rewards and kudos”. Therefore, the work of a
historian is to scrutinise accepted pre-conceptions of their subject which is driven by a historian’s purpose,
therefore invalidating Daddow’s statement.

Historiographical constructions are ultimately driven by a historian’s purpose which is consequently shaped by
context, which as depicted can initially involve historians “narrating what they think happened in times gone
by”, therefore highlighting how the statement applies to some extent. Within Schlesinger’s A Thousand Days
(1965), JFK’s quixotic and liberal portrayal had been permeated throughout the book which details his
courageous stance during the Cuban Missile Crisis (CMC), as explicated by the fact that his “combination of
toughness and restraint…so brilliantly controlled….dazzled the world”, and that his intentions for EXCOMM
were to allow all considerations to be “free, intent and continuous”. By further considering that Schlesinger’s
personal agenda was to write a “memoir” and that this was written in the wake of Kennedy’s assassination, this
establishes the fact that this ubiquitous sense of national grief had significantly impacted Schlesinger’s depiction
of Kennedy. In tandem with the fact that he had well-aligned liberal values and was also a close friend of
Kennedy’s since their days at Harvard, it can be deduced that rather “than dwelling on the closures”, Schlesinger
had indeed sought to perpetuate and deify Kennedy’s mannerisms by “narrating what [he] think happened in
times gone by”, as reinforced by his methodology which involved him keeping a journal and meeting with
“colleagues of the Kennedy administration”. This underscores that when establishing a foundational perspective
or work on a historical subject, especially during a time of political turbulence like the Cold War, “[gaining]
more rewards and kudos” requires one to project a continuous and raw form of history. The emotional
sentiments entrenched within Schlesinger’s “paper monument” of Kennedy, as Paul Hogan states, would have
reflected the collective, national grief and political disorder that the public would have experienced at the time,
and also provide some comfort and closure. Therefore, it is expressed to some extent that historians may be
obligated to not “focus on gaps” in the past, as the zeitgeist of the time in which they were writing and their
personal sentiments would have dictated their construction of history.
However, ever-changing temporal contexts and the emergence of new evidence would inevitably result in
historian’s questioning the authenticity of pre-existing interpretations and portrayals of history, as demonstrated
within Hersh’s The Dark Side of Camelot, therefore reducing the applicability of Daddow’s statement. Rather
than just criticising Schlesinger’s imbalanced, unnecessary deification of JFK during the midst of the CMC,
Hersh also further delves into the nuances and existent disparities between his Camelotesque exterior and
corrupt private self. This is explicated by Hersh’s detailed account and research into JFK’s family life and
consequently how this had impacted his character and accounted for his poor decisions during the CMC,
therefore demonstrating his “inclination to focus on the gaps and prejudices of accounts of the past”. Hersh
emphasises that the Kennedy family was high dysfunctional and unloving, therefore contributing to his highly
manipulative nature and private character, for he “learned from his father…that they could enjoy freedoms…the
consequences of their acts were for others to worry about”. This indicates that the Kennedy family was in fact
saturated with much corruption which had been concealed , therefore allowing JFK’s consistently mythologised
exterior to be propelled into the public, since he “was a dazzling figure…with stunning good looks, an
inquisitive mind”. By also considering Hersh’s benefit of hindsight, and the increasingly suspicious atmosphere
directed towards the US government after the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 and the Watergate
Scandal, Hersh’s inclinations to further delve into past projections of Kennedy was justified. By taking initiative
to ”dwell on the closures in their texts”, Hersh had demonstrated his ultimate purpose in “helping the nation
reclaim some of its history” hence reinforcing the fact that Daddow’s statement is becoming increasingly invalid
as he posits that there is a clear need to challenge and attempt to fill in the gaps of history for the benefit of
consumers.

The crucial nature of revisionism, and therefore being inclined to ”focus on…gaps and prejudices”, is further
reinforced by Dallek’s An Unfinished Life (2003), hence expressing Daddow’s view to a limited extent. Dallek,
a post-revisionist, had provided a highly balanced and complex view of Kennedy not as a deity or complete
rascal, but rather an ordinary human being that had multiple successes and flaws. This further demonstrates how
historians can have a more well-considered way of interpreting pre-existing works, resulting in “rewards and
kudos” by projecting a more nuanced and therefore enriching view of historical subjects, therefore reinforcing
the need to inquire rather than simply “narrate”. This is explicit in how Dallek, despite positing like Hersh that
Kennedy had contributed to the emergence of the CMC, had learnt from his mistakes from the Bay of Pigs
fiasco which “deepened his distrust of [the military’s] promised results”, therefore leading to his ultimate
success. This constant revisionism and inclination to fill in silences and gaps is furthered when considering
Surnow’s mini-series The Kennedy’s, which had transformed Hersh’s heavily negative and acerbic portrayal of
Kennedy’s private character. Despite also challenging the Camelot myth of Kennedy being a glamorous and
perfect president, as depicted by the series’ exposure of Kennedy’s lust and womanising in multiple scenes, it
was also able to display Kennedy’s ability to at times overcome the influence of his father through being more
emotionally self-aware. This contrast in the multiple fragments that make up his private character is further
exemplified by the series’ tendency to intercut some Camelotesque, mythologised scenes such as Kennedy
playing football with his family, to those that reflect more flawed aspects of his character such as Jackie wanting
divorce. This provides a more nuanced projection of Kennedy as a complex human, therefore in tandem with
Dallek further disparaging and reassessing highly polarised depictions of JFK. Essentially, by extensively
“dwelling on the closures in their texts…the ways in which they may have interpreted things differently”, post-
revisionists have been able to gain even more“rewards and kudos” by projecting more enriching views of
history, therefore highlighting the limited extent to which Daddow’s view is expressed.

Therefore, Daddow’s statement is expressed to a limited extent, as it has been demonstrated by multifarious
representations of JFK that historical depictions are ever-changing as a result of historical inquiry and changing
contexts. Hence, it is inevitable that historians will be inclined to explore and fill in the gaps and silences of
history.