![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldVincent Bugliosi, most famous for his book Helter Skelter about the Charles Manson killings of 1969, has just come out with a new and very impressive tome. Reclaiming History: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy is, Bugliosi tells us, is the culmination of two decades of writing and research into the Kennedy assassination following his 1986 televised prosecution of Lee Harvey Oswald at "trial". I strongly dislike Bugliosi's chatty and digressive writing style--a co-writer might have helped make the tone of the book less distracting--but I can't disagree that it is a vast and accomplished book, "1600-plus page[s] with a CD ROM of more than one thousand pages of endnotes," noteworthy for its assessment of different conspiracy theories (LBJ, the mob, the CIA, the FBI, the KGB, Castro, the Far Right, et cetera). After reading it, I'm still pretty sure that the evidence suggests that Oswald acted alone, more, likely on the spur of the moment.
With all respects to Bugliosi, this book won't convince many people. It's not just a matter of length, but it's a matter of human psychology. Consider the rumours that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Even though Obama has denied this numerous times, even though critical third-party research has confirmed Obama's stories, a non-trivial proportion of the American population--something in the neighbourhood of 15%, I think--believes that Obama is. Why? As one blogger points out, not only might the question-and-answer style of many of the denials confuse people, but some demographics (including conservative Republicans) may be particularly resistant to efforts to set things straight. Part of it is self-interest: Daniel Pipes, who wrote an entire book about conspiracies has devote significant time to helping out the "Barack is a Muslim" meme as a consequence of his on mad-on against Muslims. Some demographics, including those demographics inclined to suspicion of the government, will but it.
More important, I think, is the bias held by many people against the idea that vast changes can start from small beginnings. Who would have thought that the decision of someone somewhere in French Equatorial Africa to kill and inexpertly butcher a chimpanzee would lead to an epidemic that would kill tens of millions by the end of the 20th century? Who would have thought that one consequence of those shots fired in Sarajevo would e the near-complete emptying of central Europe, outside of a shrunken Germany and a much-shrunken Austria, of ethnic Germans? Who would ... ? People can walk around boulders, but we can't escape pebbles. The sense that these consequences are impossibly disproportionate to the causes is unsettling. It's more comforting, perhaps, to believe that a broad conspiracy of some of the most powerful people and organizations in the world killed Kennedy, rather than one unstable man with a desire to be a world-historical figure and a mail-order rifle.
But who am I kidding with all this? Three-quarters of the American population believe in a conspiracy, at least according to a 2003 Gallup poll, and I'd be surprised if Canadian figures are much different. Why should I belong to such a solitary minority? In fact, while reading Reclaiming History, I came across the truth of the Kennedy assassination, the one that Bugliosi was trying to hide. Ready?
The government of Luxembourg, bored with all of the grand duchy's money and looking for a challenge, commissioned three Americans: Frank Sinatra, who wanted to get back at the Kennedys for their neglect after all the fundraising he did; Joe DiMaggio, who wanted to get back at JFK for murdering Marilyn Monroe (grassy knoll, anyone?); and, finally, the central player, Jackie, who was not only tired of her husband's philandering and interested in a Greek shipping magnate, but was looking for a tasteful way to dispose of the unattractive outfit she'd received from some minor European statesman's wife.
I'm happy to tell you that the book contract negotiations look promising. Would anyone like a signed copy?
With all respects to Bugliosi, this book won't convince many people. It's not just a matter of length, but it's a matter of human psychology. Consider the rumours that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Even though Obama has denied this numerous times, even though critical third-party research has confirmed Obama's stories, a non-trivial proportion of the American population--something in the neighbourhood of 15%, I think--believes that Obama is. Why? As one blogger points out, not only might the question-and-answer style of many of the denials confuse people, but some demographics (including conservative Republicans) may be particularly resistant to efforts to set things straight. Part of it is self-interest: Daniel Pipes, who wrote an entire book about conspiracies has devote significant time to helping out the "Barack is a Muslim" meme as a consequence of his on mad-on against Muslims. Some demographics, including those demographics inclined to suspicion of the government, will but it.
More important, I think, is the bias held by many people against the idea that vast changes can start from small beginnings. Who would have thought that the decision of someone somewhere in French Equatorial Africa to kill and inexpertly butcher a chimpanzee would lead to an epidemic that would kill tens of millions by the end of the 20th century? Who would have thought that one consequence of those shots fired in Sarajevo would e the near-complete emptying of central Europe, outside of a shrunken Germany and a much-shrunken Austria, of ethnic Germans? Who would ... ? People can walk around boulders, but we can't escape pebbles. The sense that these consequences are impossibly disproportionate to the causes is unsettling. It's more comforting, perhaps, to believe that a broad conspiracy of some of the most powerful people and organizations in the world killed Kennedy, rather than one unstable man with a desire to be a world-historical figure and a mail-order rifle.
But who am I kidding with all this? Three-quarters of the American population believe in a conspiracy, at least according to a 2003 Gallup poll, and I'd be surprised if Canadian figures are much different. Why should I belong to such a solitary minority? In fact, while reading Reclaiming History, I came across the truth of the Kennedy assassination, the one that Bugliosi was trying to hide. Ready?
The government of Luxembourg, bored with all of the grand duchy's money and looking for a challenge, commissioned three Americans: Frank Sinatra, who wanted to get back at the Kennedys for their neglect after all the fundraising he did; Joe DiMaggio, who wanted to get back at JFK for murdering Marilyn Monroe (grassy knoll, anyone?); and, finally, the central player, Jackie, who was not only tired of her husband's philandering and interested in a Greek shipping magnate, but was looking for a tasteful way to dispose of the unattractive outfit she'd received from some minor European statesman's wife.
I'm happy to tell you that the book contract negotiations look promising. Would anyone like a signed copy?
