I just heard about this mini-series and I wanted to share my 2 cents. I'm going to focus on "conservative history" and reality. I've spent my college years learning about history and the "new" way our story is being told. Here's what I think "revisionist" history means:
The reason why the history taught today is different than it was 30 years ago because there was a social revolution. Minorities were no longer standing by and letting the story be told by and about the old white male. As we search out these new people's histories, we're also finding a whole mess of "dirty laundry" that the white man has been hiding. It complicates things, in a good way. History is no longer some perfect ideal that seems too good to be true. Anyone who pays any attention to modern society KNOWS that life is complicated. We know what kinds of decisions go into an event. We can't turn a historical event into a soundbite--it's just not possible. If you want a shining example of this, please visit Harry Truman's Presidential Library and Museum. The main exhibit there literally puts you into his shoes, giving you the information that he had and asking you "what would you do" when it comes to dropping the a-bomb. I have put this museum on the top of my vacation list.
Back to the Kennedy mini-series issue, there is debate about whether political leanings were involved. The History Channel claims that there are issues with historical accuracy and the main producer claims that it's because of his conservative leanings. I say that the truth is somewhere in between. I haven't studied conservative responses to Kennedy and he's old enough that people that were liberal back then would have turned conservative now. So I'm left to speculate. Since there are no obviously outrageous secrets spilled (according to some insider who's seen the series), I assume that the exact opposite is true. I think that the series shows too nice of a story of the Kennedys. There is that question about Marilyn Monroe and maybe they show a historically inaccurate account of this. Maybe their take on the Bay of Pigs is inaccurate. Maybe they focus too much on speculating on the personal life--more than can accurately be known. There's too many questions. Since neither Kennedys who are said to have objected to the series elected to speak, it's still only speculation as to if they are actually involved. This analysis would definitely not hold up in court.
The reason why the history taught today is different than it was 30 years ago because there was a social revolution. Minorities were no longer standing by and letting the story be told by and about the old white male. As we search out these new people's histories, we're also finding a whole mess of "dirty laundry" that the white man has been hiding. It complicates things, in a good way. History is no longer some perfect ideal that seems too good to be true. Anyone who pays any attention to modern society KNOWS that life is complicated. We know what kinds of decisions go into an event. We can't turn a historical event into a soundbite--it's just not possible. If you want a shining example of this, please visit Harry Truman's Presidential Library and Museum. The main exhibit there literally puts you into his shoes, giving you the information that he had and asking you "what would you do" when it comes to dropping the a-bomb. I have put this museum on the top of my vacation list.
Back to the Kennedy mini-series issue, there is debate about whether political leanings were involved. The History Channel claims that there are issues with historical accuracy and the main producer claims that it's because of his conservative leanings. I say that the truth is somewhere in between. I haven't studied conservative responses to Kennedy and he's old enough that people that were liberal back then would have turned conservative now. So I'm left to speculate. Since there are no obviously outrageous secrets spilled (according to some insider who's seen the series), I assume that the exact opposite is true. I think that the series shows too nice of a story of the Kennedys. There is that question about Marilyn Monroe and maybe they show a historically inaccurate account of this. Maybe their take on the Bay of Pigs is inaccurate. Maybe they focus too much on speculating on the personal life--more than can accurately be known. There's too many questions. Since neither Kennedys who are said to have objected to the series elected to speak, it's still only speculation as to if they are actually involved. This analysis would definitely not hold up in court.
No comments:
Post a Comment