[On July
18th, 1969, Senator Ted Kennedy was involved in a car accident
that left his female companion Mary
Jo Kopechne dead. So this week I’ll AmericanStudy that Chappaquiddick
incident and four other Kennedy family
histories, leading up to a weekend post on cultural representations of the
family!]
On two ways to
AmericanStudy the one assassination we can’t quite accept.
There have been lots
of political assassinations, successful and attempted, in American history,
and as far as I can tell in every case but one we’ve collectively accepted the
identity of the individual who pulled the trigger. From John
Wilkes Booth to Leon
Czolgosz, James
Earl Ray to Sirhan
Sirhan, Squeaky
Fromme to John
Hinckley, each of these assassins or attempted assassins was driven by his
or her own unique and complex motivations, and some were certainly part of
larger collective conspiracies—such as Booth
and his cohort of Confederates or Fromme
and the Manson family. Yet despite such connections, and notwithstanding
the kinds of questions or
uncertainties that surround any historical crime, I would argue that only
one American assassination has been subject to consistent, comprehensive suspicions
and conspiracy theories: Lee Harvey Oswald’s November 1963 shooting of
President John F. Kennedy.
So why has the
Kennedy assassination been so singularly controversial? I think there are a
couple AmericanStudies explanations for that trend. (To be clear, books—many,
many books—have been written
about the Kennedy assassination and its conspiracy theories, and I’m sure that
the angles I’ll cover here are part of those existing conversations.) For one
thing, as the famous
1960 televised debate between Kennedy and Richard Nixon demonstrates, this
was a new era in American media, one in which television had just begun to
change the way we received and understood our news and our society. Perhaps no
single moment better illustrates that change than the live televised shooting of
Oswald by troubled Dallas businessman Jack Ruby. And
it seems to me that seeing such an event on live television might well lead to
more visceral responses to and varied speculations about it than reading a
report on the shooting in the next day’s newspaper, or hearing a reporter’s
description of it on the radio. Ironically, that is, the end of the same
presidency that began in no small measure because of the power of television and new
media has been forever clouded by those same factors.
There’s another
side to the media coverage of the Kennedy assassination and its aftermath,
though: the power of one very determined, definitely extremist person
to utilize the media to advance and perpetuate his ideas. I’m
referring of course to Jim
Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who became and has remained the
leading proponent and symbol of the JFK conspiracy theories. As the pieces
linked under “definitely extremist” and “perpetuate his ideas” indicate,
Garrison seems to represent some of the most unlikely and even absurd sides to
those theories—yet he was able to present them in media-savvy and convincing
ways, to the point where he sufficiently swayed
filmmaker Oliver Stone that Stone made Garrison (as played by Kevin Costner)
the famous centerpiece of his controversial
film JFK (1991). And in
techniques like its blending
of archival footage with “re-created” (fictionalized) scenes, Stone’s film
extended this use of media images and narratives, making it that much harder to
separate fact from fiction when it comes to the most prominent and enduring
conspiracy theory in American history.
Last
KennedyStudying tomorrow,
Ben
PS. What do you
think? Other Kennedy connections you’d highlight?
PPS. On Twitter, conspiracy theory scholar Bob Blaskiewicz (https://skepticalhumanities.com/) shares:
ReplyDelete"I think you're right about the live assassination of Oswald as having an outsized impact on it. Also, you know, it was the biggest crime we could imagine and the one person who could validate the official story, was killed. Lots of room/incentive for speculation."