After reading and listening to the different views of President Kennedy's life as seen through different biographers' eyes, it's time for your opinion/assessment.
John Kennedy's biographers are usually broken into two groups: one group works to reinforce the image of Kennedy as icon, as the ideal president. They tend to gloss over the difficult stuff in his life with the idea that it's not important to know that kind of info about him. These biographers also stress his good qualities and downplay his bad qualities.
The second group of biographers are iconoclasts; they are trying to poke holes in the JFK myth by finding evidence to refute many of the cherished (and false) stories about the Kennedy family, clan, and presidency. These biographers are like realist authors - they give you the gritty details of a person's life; the fact that this person was the president doesn't seem to phase them.
The American people have consistently voted JFK (along with Lincoln) as their greatest American President, yet historians have given him the title "Most Overrated" in American Heritage magazine. When looking at his Congressional record, he didn't do much. Almost the same thing can be said for his Presidential record; how significant were the Peace Corps and the race to the moon in the long run?
Your job: answer the following questions
1. Share your assessment of the man and his job as president. Explain your reasoning.
2. Where should biographers draw the line on their subjects? How much is too much and how little is too little? It really boils down to what the main job of a biographer is.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Great link to a tribute website to a JFK archivist, Mary Ferrell.
"After a hard day's work diggin' up the sod, we're ready for chow."
Welcome to our class's blog. We are discussing the latest topics we're studying in American history and literature. This website has been active since December 2005. Selected Excel 10 students will take turns posting their thoughts, and other Excel 10 students will comment on these posts. Parents, staff, and other interested persons are invited to add their comments on our musings. Any inappropriate comments will be deleted.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(81)
-
▼
March
(13)
- Doug's questions about the Zapruder tape
- Zapruder film: historical artifact, exploitation, ...
- Different Views of President Kennedy
- Invasion of Privacy? Not Really.
- Thoughts on "Good Night and Good Luck"
- Changing Ideas about the Hiroshima
- Murrow's quotes applied to today?
- The Legality of Wiretapping
- Thoughts on Intervention in Darfur
- Questions on the Cold War?
- Darfur Awareness Day
- What rights would you give up?
- Hiroshima? Revenge?
-
▼
March
(13)
27 comments:
I think that Kennedy was a good President but I don't think he did too much that was so substantial above other Presidents. He seems really unbalanced, like Holden Caulfield. Like one minute he's like yay rights for all and the hes depersonalizing women and won't come into contact with black people. I don't know if I'd be able to trust his word. I think it was really great that he created the Peace Corps, and with the Space Race I'm not really sure how important that was because I think there are other ways that he could spend that money. Overall I definitely agree that he is quite overrated, but as for most overrated, I don't know enough about all of the Presidents to decide that.
The job of the biographer is to tell about the person. I don't think that romanticizing a person is going to give the reader any good knowledge but I don't think that focusing on just the bad parts of the person's life will do much either. The biography should tell about all points of the persons life in ratios of amounts that the points affected them. It's not about too much or too little, it's about what happened and what didn't.
I do think that JFK was a good president, but his term might not be considered great compared to others. He did deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs, and the New Frontier but part of the reason why he is so popular is his image. Many people didn’t care what bills Kennedy signed, but they wanted to know about this personal life and be more like him. In the long run although it didn’t work out as initially planed, the Peace Corps I think was a good idea to spread the wealth of other of our country to other nations. And the space race was just that, a race. Our money could have been much better spent instead of competing with the USSR.
As far as biographers go that is a tough one. If you are important enough to have someone take the time to write a book about your life, than I don’t really think that anything should be left out. If you have had that big of an impact on America, then I think that they deserve to hear your whole story. But, here is where I will become hypocritical...some things really are just to personal to share with the entire world. I think that a good biographer would touch on the bad issues but not spend an entire book focusing about them. I mean, even the bad issues helped to make that person great and they should be included into the story.
That’s about it...
~Alyssa
After learning so much about President Kenedy, I would have to say that yes, he was a good president, but no I don't think that he did the most for our country or should be considered the very best. His work creating the Peace Corps was important but there are many other presidents who created programs like these as well.
In my opinion, people only think of him as such a good president becuase of his many movie star qualities. He was charismatic and good looking which won the hearts of many Americans. Then he was shot at a young age. We talked earlier in the semester about how it is common for someone to become idolized when they are killed at a young age.
It is hard to answer the question about where biographers should draw the line. Personally, I like to read all of the details and read a more " realist" version of their life. However, if the story was about me..eh not so much. I think it is up to the biographer to decide where to draw the line. They have to use their own morals while writing and be considerite of the personal information about someone, which they are about to share with the whole world. I think biographers should share enough information so we understand their lives clearly, but not too much that it offends the person the book is about. I know it is much easier said then done, but biographers simply need to use manners and personal values when writing biographies about other people.
I think that JFK was a good president but I don't like how he always lied to the people. Or not really 'lied' but hid the truth so much (for example his ill health). I feel like he did that a lot, he wanted people to see him as a certain way that he was not. Also, I dont think that the race to space was all that important and we should not have spent SO much money on it. The only reason that JFK wanted to be the first to space was so he would beat everyone else, it was almost a personnal issue for him or just something he HAD to do first. But i do think that it was really good he created the peace corps and all. I just think we could have spend our money in so many better ways than on the race to space.
2. I think the main job of a biographer is to tell everything that they KNOW about the persons life. They shouldn't strech the truth and tell things that they aren't sure are 100% true, good or bad about the person. I think lying about somebodys health and covering things up is also drawing the line.
MELISSA
I think that Kennedy was a great guy. It seems like no other president has had almost the whole country in love with him. I am sure that not everyone loved him, but when he died everyone morned somehow. He may have lied and done things that werent right, but who hasnt? i am not condoning it, but i think that he made it up by supporting civil rights and being the "people's president." i wish i was alive to meet him, he seems like an interesting guy.
much love for excel 10!!
I think JFK wasn't any better than most of the presidents. He enlarged the peace corps, which was a good thing, but he also made some bad decisions. Like the Bay of Pigs- it was a U.S. militry embarassment and he should have thought it through more, like the fact that the CIA trained men were out-numbered by Castro's men 10-to-1. I think one of the reasons the public loved him so much was because he was good looking, young, and very charismatic. His wife was beautiful and more rebellious than prior first ladies. Newspapers and magazines covered everything the Kennedys did. They worshiped them, and naturally, so did the public.
I don't think that biographers should make people look better than they are and not saying anything about their faults. But they also shouldn't only focus on their faults. They should tell every aspect of that person's life without getting too personal to the point where people just shouldn't know every single little detail.
I think that JFK was a good president with some pretty bad qualities. He did get us on the moon and he helped push for civil rights. I think his best achievement was the Peace Corps. It’s still around today, and still helping countries that are poor and in need of aid.
He is glamorized more than he should be, even after the Bay of Pigs and other flops, but he was a hero to the American people. He was the ideal man with the ideal family. When he was shot, it still made the people think he was “strong” instead of seeing him die after his countless diseases. In this way he became even more idolized.
I think that the biographer should tell the story of his persona and achievements. Sure they can talk about the bad things, but people don’t want to see a bad man, they want to see the hero they cheered for over 40 years ago.
-Maggie
I agree with most everyone, in thinking that JFK was a good president. There wasn't really big things that he did for America but his presence is what people liked about him. He broke the mold of a president--> young, appeared healthy, and was catholic. The Peace Corps was a better idea then landing on the moon. The Peace Corps can be used a long time, where going to the moon is a one time thing.
For the biographers, I think that a mix of the two the good side and the bad side should be told becasue that is their job to tell. The should be a line that should be gone over with the family so that they aare comfortable with it.
To me, JFK seemed like a pretty great president. Sure, he could have put more of a priority on civil rights, but given his background and the social norms of the time it just wasn't realistic. Like everyone else has said, the Peace Corps was definitely a good idea. As for the Space Race, I feel like if you take it for its face value it wasn't really necessary and it seemed like we were just trying to "beat" the USSR, but at that time technology was such a new and important part of a country's abilities that it really was important that we take that opportunity. I don't think the Space Race was unnecessary at all and I think that JFK did the right thing for putting a priority on it, but he also should have put more of a priority on civil rights.
I feel like biographers need to be more realistic. I don't think there is anything wrong or "heartless" about being honest about a person's flaws. Just because someone was considered a "hero" doesn't mean that they're perfect and should be portrayed that way. I think that's just shallow and people need to get over the fact that presidents are human too. However, biographers should not solely try to put down the people they are writing about and simply prove everyone who viewed them as a hero wrong. I think that they need to be honest, but give the person they are writing about the benefit of the doubt. Biographers should definitely be more honest and unbiased, but in order for them to feel like it's okay to do that we as readers need to be less shallow and be able to handle the truth about famous people.
I think that JFK was a good president. He modernized the way the white house and first family were viewed, along with his wife. he also avoided huge catastrophe by handleing the cuban missile crisis without the US getting blown up. JFK also jump started NASA and got a man on the moon, a huge achievement. Even though there were mistakes in his short time in office, like the Bay of Pigs, he still maintained a positive presidency.
As for the biographers, I think that they should tell it like it is. They shouldn't point out every single mistake in his life to make him look bad, they should view him as a person and wright about him as one. JFK was not a super hero, but he wasnt a spineless jerk either. Thats my views on JFK.
,Alex P.
I think JFK was a good president. I mean he was voted as one of the greatest American presidents. I don't think he was hte most overrated though. But it is true that he did hide some things from America that kind of was important. Especially his poor health. I guess it was good thing to have done that becuase i don't think he would've been the president if everyone knew how sick he was and all of his problems.
It really does boil down to what the main job of the biographer is. If you are one of those biographers that are meant to show JFK in a good icon way or the more real and bad side, thats what you will do. I don't think you need to draw the line anywhere. It's a biographers job to tell everything about that persons life so too much isn't a bad thing. But in some cases, if they tell to little, then you aren't finding out anything about the person and its not really like you are having a true biography.
Brit
I think that Kennedy was a pretty good president (he dealt with the Cuban missile crisis pretty well and created the Peace Corps and did a lot for civil rihgts, although I don't think the race to the moon was entirely necessary). However, I think that the reason so many people view him as such a good president was because he was the symbol for an entire generation, and as soon as he died, people started to idealize his life so that they would only remember the good things about him. I think that if he had lived another twenty years, people would dramatize his scandals instead of ignore them.
As far as the job of a biographer goes, I think that they should tell the whole truth and not conceal anything to make the person they are writing about seem better or worse than they really were. So for Kennedy, I think that the biographers should tell both how he did a lot for civil rights and created the Peace Corps, as well as how he cheated on his wife and lied about his education.
i think president Kennedy was a good president for the most part he just sometimes over did situations like the race to the moon and he was also fake at times, like with his illnesses. However a great accomplishment was the formation of the peace corps because it worked and is still around today. i think that most people portrayed Kennedy as the perfect president without really knowing much about him, which leads to the biographers.
The biographers i think were just trying to get to show people what was bad about him and trying to convince people about false stories. I think there should be like people in control of the biographers, because they're not really doing anything but creating confusion and people dont know what to believe.
-emily
JFK was the man who had the great reputation, whether he lived up to it or not is less important because this is what the people saw. He was able to solve many tough situations like the bay of pigs and the cuban missle crisis, while in a constant state of pain and uncomfort. He showed us that when you don't know the whole truth, it might be better than always knowing it. If America knew he was sick they would have questioned his capability. When we didn't know it seemed he did a great job.
Like many debates there is always good points in both. It is great to be able to see an ideal president and make you feel like you were a great country, but if you don't get those writers that look for every detail of bad that went on in his life, you would not see that the flaws are in everybody. The citizens should know whats going on but mostly, they should be reading the biographer that shows their sibjects as perfect. Most likely, 80% to 20% ratio. That way you can be happy while seeing ways to learn from your mistakes
I think that JFK was a good president, but not the most successful. He did establish important organizations, like the Peace Corps, and ignite the race to the moon, but those things hardly compare to things that, for example, Roosevelt did. Although he was seem as a anti-feminist and a racist, he did do important things for the civil rights movement. I don't think you can call him overrated because his term was short and no one is sure of what he could have done for the country.
I think that a biographers job is to report the facts. Although this maybe their job, they shouldnt do it to the point of humiliating the person. They should give the straight facts, not irrelivent things about personal life. Even though biographers should tell the truth about Kennedy and other presidents, they should have a certain amount of respect.
-Natalie
Kennedy was no doubt a great president but I don’t think that he is the best president in American history. He did lie about this health and education but hey no one can be a perfect. JFK did many things for the U.S while he was in office. A few things are his progress with civil rights, the Cuban missile crisis and his New Frontier. All of these things really advanced the U.S and broke barriers. This creation of the Peace Crops was a brilliant idea that not only helped people but also out us on good temps with many countries. JFK life style is another reason why he is so popular. His looks, family and personality won over America. Overall Kennedy worked hard throughout his presidency battling his health problems and trying to make America a better place.
I think that there are many views on where biographers should draw the line. I think that if you are famous you have to understand that people are going to write about your personal life but the biographers need to respect their privacy. They should focus on their career not so much of their personal life. They should give more of an over look of their life not go in to detail. It’s hard to really draw the line on how much the biographers should spill about personal life but what they are writing should be the truth and they shouldn’t stretch anything even if it’s not interesting.
JFK grabbed the attention of the nation, making the presidency a much more glamorous position than ever before. The nation got to see the president as this great guy with a beautiful family, etc. JFK had the charisma, image, charm, and likeability down; he and his family were like celebrities. But while he had an excellent presidential image, I feel as though this shrouded the fact that he didn't do that much as a president. His decisions were good and he created helpful programs in effort to advance the well being of our country, but he wasn't very influential in the long run. He was a good president, but I don't think he did enough for our country to be named the 'greatest' president.
A general biographer should be telling a complete story of the subject's life and achievements, etc. They should neither taint nor sugar-coat the image of their subject, out of respect for their title (otherwise they would be contradicting the purpose of their writing as a biography). A biographer should be writing an unbiased description of a person; opinion should not be involved. Biographies should touch on both the important achievements and the important downfalls but should not focus on one more than another. It should not be about how it seems, but about what actually happened.
-Ellie
In my opinion i think that JFK was an alright president. He brought a new and young look to the white house. The only thinkg i do not like about JFK is how he lied to everyone about his health, him going to princeton and also the books he wrote. He did some good things such as creating the peace corps and he got america to the moon first.
I think that the main job of the biographer is to give facts about who the person really is. Such as in this case biographers caught JFK in his lies and they should write about that because it shows what kind of person he really is. Also there should be biographers that show the good side of the person because everyone has a good and bad side to them. So i think that it is the biographers jobs to show the good and bad side of a person. I think that there is no line for biographers because their job is to write as much about the person as they can and if they hold back they would not be doing their jobs.
-BOB
I dont think he was a bad president but he was not one of the best. He had bad ethics and couldn't keep his word. He said that he would support black rights but would never meet with the leaders or really do much to help. Also, he constantly cheated on his wife and was sexist becuase he believed woman shouldn't have the same rights as men. Also, he would say that he was taking men out of vietnam but really he would put more men in and make the war worse. I think he was more of a public figure than a president he did more social and show off things than helping the country. So i agree he is highly overated. The job of a biography should be to tell the whole story and give equal points about a person or thing. But i dont think that is true they dont show the whole picture like they should. There can't be too much or too little its whatever is necessary to completly tell the story of someones life.
I have to say Kennedy was a good president but not in the same group as some of the more elite presidents like FDR. This man had two sides to him. He was all for some issues then turns around on them and didnt help the issue when it needed it. I still think he was the right man for the position at the time but there were some cons to him being president. He hired his family into office. Thats just using his power to help relationships with people. THat does not benefit the country unless that person is perfect for the job.
I think that when people get information on JFK they can go a little overboard. Some biographers have too much info that we didnt need to know about the man. I would rather them have some more information on some other topics. I think that the job of the biographer is to get all the important points about the man and for them to not make him look life a fool like some do. I read an article talking about him and it made it sound like we had a selfish non intellegent doofus running our COUNTRY. That's a little overboard in my opinion. The thing they should do is get what the people want and get out.
Thanks,
Mike
I agree with JFK being overrated. He did some good things but he could have done more. He was very flip-floppy with the main issues that were important at the time. Some times he would be suportive of Civil Rights and the King family, but other times he felt his attention was better used on more "important issues". Another one of his double sided ideas was Vietnam. Some of the time he seemed to be supportive of it and other times he wanted to pull out. He was also "Flip-Floppy" with his personal life, he was unfaithfull with his wife. His wife was very admired as a woman but not as a first lady. She was very inactive in politics which was looked down upon by her husband and his advisors. He was more of a social figure. He was very likeable and charismatic and that is what made him a Presidential favorite. America had not had a young and "hip" president since Roosevelt and this change was something new that that generation had never seen.
The job of a biographer is strickly to tell the story of a person's life. They shouldn't trying to spice up the story to get more readers, they must stick to the facts and all the facts. It is their job to talk about the person's life or a portion of the life, and what they talk about has to be everything that happend, not just all the good or the bad. A biography isn't opinionated it is factual. If a writer wanted to write about that bad or the good parts of a person's life then they should not be considered a biographer and their book should not be trusted as a biography.
I think I'd agree with Dayna in thinking that Kennedy was a great guy. Yes, he did lie about things in his life time such as his illnesses and his education, but a lot of people lie..not necessarily about those things though. I understand why he lied about his health issues, but about his education..I don't think he should've done that. All in all I think he was a pretty good president.
I think that JFK was a great president and he had to deal with a lot in order to look healthy. JFK had so many health problems but he stayed strong and tried to ignore them. He had great ideas for America and he made a great president, his image allowed him to win many votes. Sometimes he contridicted himself, for example with the war in Vietnam, he didn't know if he wanted to pull out of the war or stay in the war. He never had a fixed opinion on the happenings in US.
I think that biographers should stablize the information they report about someone. They should report most of the positive aspects of the person and most of the negative aspects. They can't go on and on about what a great person they were or they can't constantly say negative things about them either. If they really don't like the person then they should write a paragraph of why, but they shouldn't overly express information about the person. The biographers should have a limit to what they say, they should keep the private things about someone out of their writings.
neha
Kennedy as the president politically didn't do much, but to the publics eye he was the greatest. He was a young hip president that really connected to the younger generation. Kennedy throughout his presidency faced the Cuban missile crisis. He successfully ended that situation but before that screwed up with the Bay of Pigs. One thing that did surprise me was that Kennedy was such am ill man. He had like 30 diseases and still was able to be the president and have a bunch of affairs.
To me a biographer should only look at what Kennedy has done, from there they can decide what he might have done in the future. I feel that the things that Kennedy accomplished were very significant at that time. The race for space was to prove to America and the world that Capitalism was better then communism. I feel that a biographer should look at the big picture instead of just commenting on what he did good and what he did bad.
Daniel
I believe that JFK was one of the better Presidents our country has had. This is not to say he did very much, but he didn't hurt our country or create more problems than started out with as others(such as Bush). For instance, he got us out of the Cuban Missile Crisis okay and created the Peace Corps which was very successful with the public and helped other countries in need. This helped shape his image as a young, vigorous man who also was an example for the U.S. and was the idle persona for kids growing up. The one thing which wasn't okay though was the whole space thing. It was a complete waste of money at the time and was no need of it. But, i still believe that the lunar landing was fake(http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm).
I don' mind JFK hidding his illness and not telling the public. I find it is his own personal misforturne and no one else's need to know. As well as making him look weak, it would ruin his image and could have changed views of him from other countries and made the U.S. look not as strong as a country which could have been bad during times of Vietnam. As someone with many allergies, you only need to tell someone about your issues if it is important for them to know.
All in all, President JFK was a well spoken American who did what needed to be done at times and held America become a better country.
~Q
I think that Kennedy was a good president and he should get all the credit he deserves for creating the Peace corps and winning the space race. Although they don't seem that significant today, they were at the time. I am in between the two different groups of biographers. I agree with the JFK-good ones because he was a great president and he did help our country a lot, although I think he was more of a Hollywood face than a president. At the same time I agree with the iconoclasts because he did lie about his education and books, but you have to understand that no president has ever been or is perfect.
I don't think that biographers should draw the line anywhere with JFK because he was the president of the United States and I believe that when you take that position in office you basically throw your private life away. I think the job of a biographer is to get deep into detail and show the people what's really going on and what really happened. I think JFK understood that when he ran for president and he would have accepted that kind of exposure from the media because he realizes that comes with the job.
-AJ
I think that Kennedy was a good president and he should be considered one of the best presidents in history. He created many programs that have helped many people, the Peace Corps for example helps millions of people. The media portrayed Kennedy as a very good guy. And that is how I portray him.
Jason
Post a Comment