Citiations

Gregory, Paul. "Lee Harvey Oswald Was My Friend." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Nov. 2013. Web. May 2017.

"Interview: Robert Oswald." PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, n.d. Web.  May 2017.

Lambert, Bruce. "Jim Garrison, 70, Theorist on Kennedy Death, Dies." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Oct. 1992. Web. May 2017.

"Summary of Findings." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web.  May 2017.

US history Research Essay

JFK is a film that sets out to explain one man's quest to find out the truth over the assassination of the former president John F. Kennedy. While Glory is a film about an all black regiment in the Civil war being lead by Col.Robert Shaw. These two films may seem unrelated but in actuality they are a bit more connected than most realize. While JFK itself is a bit of an interesting movie because most of Jim Garrison's claims have and might not ever be proven. 

JFK and Glory are two films that in regards to the production of the film itself are similar due to the fact that while both based on a written work, JFK being based on a novel by Jim Garrison along with another by Jim Mars and Glory being based upon the letters of Shaw. They both are criticized as well by historians glory is more of a historical fiction movie with real people but some characters are still made up along with certain scenes the filmmakers decided to throw in that never happened. JFK is similar in that certain scenes are made up for the film such as Jim Garrison's big speech at the end while it was a mix match of different speeches he had told over the course of his long crusade he never said that entire speech in court. The two films are more Hollywood than historical but for the most part stay true to the historical side of things. 

JFK itself is a bit of a hard movie to correctly say if it is historical accurate or not due to the fact that Jim Garrison's argument was according to the New York Times dismissed by public officials and experts but at the same time The Warren Commission's also was full of inaccuracy's itself. So while the film being based upon real people according to Wikipedia and IMDB every major person in the film is real. While two people having slight changes to them one being the gay prisoner "Willie O'keefe" who was not a real person but based on 4 testimonials from 4 different people (Perry Russo, David Logan, Raymond Broshears and William morris.). The other character having an even smaller change and that being their name, Jack Martin the old man at the racetrack's real name was Edward Suggs but he went by Jack Martin. Every other major character is based upon a real person and the cast looks strikingly similar to the person they are portraying. 

Personally I would have to say for now that the movie is split down the middle in terms of it's historical accuracy due to the fact that most of this info is classified and won't be released any time soon regarding the JFK assassination. Even reading primary and secondary sources there is a confusing grey area that they find themselves in. On Archives.org reading the house committee of assassinations report from the 1970's is still a bit confusing due to the fact they state that the CIA, FBI, Secret service, Cuban Government, and Soviet Government were not involved with the assassination but at the same time saying the secret service did not provide adequate protection for Kennedy and that the Department of justice did not do a good job with leading the Warren Commission's investigation of the assassination in 1964. This is further jumbled that in the film and reported upon by the New York Times that this is basically Garrison's whole argument that the anti-Castro extremists in the CIA were in on the plan to kill JFK. The Reasons being that they did not want Kennedy to ease tensions with Russia or Cuba along with retreating troops out of Vietnam. In the movie this point is also shown by the character Mr.X who is based on L.Fletcher Prouty a man who worked for Kennedy in the 1960's but the problem with him is that some of the claims in the movie have been debunked by archive.org and other websites as well.   

Even Lee Harvey Oswald himself is in a confusing grey area, on PBS.org in an interview with his brother Robert he states that Lee acted to kill the president alone because it was a result of all his past failures, and plans yet he also says his brother was pretty smart for the marines, and even after leaving marines he got accepted into a school in Switzerland. Doesn't really seem like that much of a failure to me. An article written by Paul Gregory for the New York Times again disproves Robert's Claim of the failures by stating that Oswald was a bit of a local celebrity in Russia but then states when he came back to the US he was very jealous, controlling of his wife, refused to let her learn English. So even people that knew Oswald can't decide if he was really a nutcase acting on his own due to failures in his life or a guy who was set up by others.  

                            

Post 2

1: Artifact 1:  Only footage of the killing of JFK. Known as Zapruder film.      

Important because it's the only footage of JFK's killing and is a key point not only in just the film but in real life as well.

Artifact 2:  Photo of Lee Harvey Oswald from Life.

This Photo is useful because many people thought it was not a real image or edited in some way due to the way Lee Harvey is standing it was not debunked until 201

Artifact 3: Footage of Lee Harvey Oswald's killing by Jack Ruby

Important because Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the only people able to shed a light on the case but was gunned down by Jack Ruby.

Artifact 4: The Warren Commission report.

Important because this was the government mandated report on the JFK assassination but many people have proved it's flaws including Mr.Garrison.

Artifact 5: Footage of the Robert Kennedy killing

Important because right before Jim Garrison is set to go to trial against Clay Shaw, Robert Kennedy is assassinated this is a big realization for Jim Garrison that solving the JFK assassination is now more important than ever.   

Artifact 6: House committee on Assassinations.

Important because the case was reopened in the 1970's so even though it takes place after the movie it is still vastly different than the Warren Commission report and can help shine a light better on what happened.

Artifact 7: Address book of Jack Ruby's from when he shot Lee Oswald

Important because the book has names, and numbers of many people who Jack Ruby knew and could help tie up the connection that Jack Ruby was a mafia foot solider.

Artifact 8: Interview with Marina Oswald
Important because she was Lee's wife and this interview can help get some insight on Lee himself.

Dinner Menu

Menu: 

 

I incorporated food that was popular in the 1960's such as Fruit Gelatin, Beef Bourguignon, Chicken a la king, and  Tapioca pudding. Everything else on the menu is food from New Orleans since most of the movie takes place in New Orleans since Jim Garrison lives and works there.    

Beignets

Chicken A la King

 

Beef Bourguignon

Dinner Invitation

Dinner Invitation  

Guest list.

1: Oliver Stone (Director) 

2: Paul Gregory (Author of New york times article, knew the Oswald personally when they lived in Texas) 

3: Jim Marrs (Historian, Author of "Crossfire", 2nd book that movie is based on, former Journalist.) 

4: Jim Garrison (Historian, New Orleans DA, opened up the JFK case, Author of "On the Trail of Assassins") 

5: Lee Harvey Oswald. (Killer of JFK) 

6: Bryan Bender (Author of Bobby Kennedy article, Boston Globe) 

7: L.Fletcher Prouty. (chief of special operations during Kennedy administration, Letters from himself to Garrison were found) 

8: David Ferrie. (One of Garrison's key witness's died a week after public learned of Garrison's investigation was reportedly very close to Lee Harvey Oswald.) 

WW1 propaganda posters

WW1 propaganda posters. 

1. Propaganda is a tool used by governments to get people to feel a certain way about something. 

2: Propaganda: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. Link to dictionary.com

4a: I see right away the big red cross that is in the corner of the picture. My eye is drawn to the lady and child since they are bright compared to the drab and gray background. The background is dark with I'm assuming the 4 horsemen or something similar in the background maybe the 3 on horseback represent the axis powers during WW1. While the lady and child are brightly colored and are shown with the lady having her hand out. 

   5a: The artist was trying to show off a sense of dread with this image but also hopeful with the woman and child.

6a: The target audience was women. 

 4b: I see right away the lady in white with the diploma. That is what I'm drawn too, I also notice that the door says opportunity on it. I'm drawn mostly to the lady though which was the author's intention. 

5b: The message this ad is trying to show is that becoming a nurse will give you a bright (all white clothing) future along with opportunity's as well.  

6b: The ideal target for this ad is young women. 

 4c: I see right away the lady working as an operator. My eyes are drawn to the troops in the background of the picture because I noticed the horse and the gray hats worn by the troops. 

5c: The artist was hoping people would feel a sense of helping out with the war effort since they were some females helping over there at the time and they wanted people to feel the need to join the YWCA and help out. 

6c:  I believe the target audience is men because they want them to help out the women who are over there helping out because if they have to then the men should too. 

7:   It depends what the subject matter is and what the intention is. Rallying citizens around during war time is good but like making an campaign against like a group of people isn't good.

8:  The government needed to keep American's interested in the war because while at first it was just a European conflict they eventually were going to be in it. 

Hawaiian: The Legend of Eddie Aikau

Reflective Piece

The perspective that the film shows is that the effects of imperialism last for a long time especially on the native people. Eddie's family at the start has to move into the graveyard even though they are native Hawaiians simply because they have been pushed aside by the hotels, and other buildings built by the US. It even shows in the surf competitions at the start, The Duke Kahama surfing competition only featured White Californians and not a single native Hawaiian even though the birthplace of surfing is Hawaii. It also is demonstrated in the beaches, native Hawaiian's aren't even allowed on some of the beaches at the start of the film or they would get weird looks from tourists if they were on those beaches. 

A photo from the first Duke Kahanamoku competition, even though being one of the most famous Hawaiians not even the Duke could get them to invite some natives to the event.