Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
James DiEugenio

The Kennedys and Civil Rights: How the MSM Continues to Distort History

Recommended Posts

This essay is part of the phenomenon  I call the Posthumous Assassination of JFK.  I have been working on this for a long time, going back to the nineties.

The idea is to kill the man's image and reputation and somehow that will take the sting out of his assassination.  The MSM goes to amazing lengths on this subject e.g. Sy Hersh, the late John Davis, Thomas Reeves, Collier and Horowitz.

I figured with this being the 55th anniversary of JFK's death, plus the fiftieth of his brother and King, they would do something like that with respect to President Kennedy and civil rights.  Well, they did.

Here is my reply:

https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/the-kennedys-and-civil-rights-how-the-msm-continues-to-distort-history-part-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished reading part 1 Jim.

As always so much to absorb and reflect on. 

My knowledge of this part of our history has been instantaneously greatly enhanced.

Incredibly, much of the racial battle history you discuss is "still" one of the biggest dynamics in our current day national policy war.  Almost 200 years after it began!

Even now in 2018, Trump sends signals he is more with the Jim Crow crowd than the rest of America which is not of this mind-set. Take your pick as to why.

When Judge Roy Moore was defeated in the 2017 Alabama Senate race, this may have been a predictive event in that it was possibly revealing a change in the demographics of some of the Southern states from clear white majorities to less so.

But even if this demographic dynamic may or may not be true, it still took the most society outrage sentiment against child predators to swing that Alabama Senator race to a minuscule 10,000 vote defeat of Moore.

I always sense that there are two most basic personal feeling agendas that drive people to vote for certain candidates all across the country that Trump all others.

Race...and money.

Race for the huge majority of voters who are not in the top 5% of our economic society class structure...and money for those 5%.

The trick for the small 5% minority but hugely disproportionately wealthy class to further their agenda is to work up all the others in the lower classes by playing the race card and sending them clear signals they are with them. 

Bush Jr.refused to attend an NAACP meeting in 2004.

Jul 13, 2004 - Leaders of the NAACP say they're furious with President Bush for refusing to address their convention this past weekend. ... George W. Bush.
 
Trump tells the nation and the world "There are good people on both sides" after a young women was killed by white supremacists at a North Carolina Confederate statue protest demonstration.
 
These types of racist favoring actions or words by Republicans are clear in their purpose of catering and pandering to this part of our society for their votes.
 
A tried and true way to get the dumb, poor racial hatred folk to vote for the super wealthy and their true and most important agenda - increasing their wealth!
 
Same way wealthy Southerners worked up poor young white folks to do their fighting for them in the Civil War.
 
So much more to say about your essay. It takes time to assimilate all your information though.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe,

I deal with that in parts 3 and 4.  Kennedy understood that he would now lose the south.  In fact, RFK offered to resign in November of 1963 since he now appeared too far out there on the issue.  When the Kennedys faced off against Wallace at Alabama, that was nationally broadcast.  To save a repeat of what happened at Ole Miss, Katzenbach had to give in to Wallace, and let him have his speech, since he had assembled 895 state and local police there against 3000 troops. Contrary to popular belief, that was not worked out until that morning.  The Kennedys did not know what Wallace would do until then. In fact, RFK thought they might have to shove the two students through the furthest door, which is in that film Crisis.

But Wallace said after that he had now turned the south against the Democratic Party for at least a generation. It was really a tragic situation, since as i described in Part one, all the previous presidents refused to confront the problem..Some of them, like Wilson and Taft, made it worse.  And Nixon and Eisenhower did next to nothing even though they had the Brown decision in their laps.  So it all fell to JFK.

At the end of part 3, I put together a chart showing what he achieved versus what his three predecessors did. He did about three times as much as all of them combined in about 1/7 the time.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outstanding piece of work, Jim, and highly relevant to our nation's current political and racial turmoil.

The only mainstream media production I have seen that focused on the Kennedy brothers' critical role in the Civil Rights movement is the recent Bobby Kennedy for President HBO series, which relied extensively on commentaries by African Americans involved in the Civil Rights movement, including Congressman John Lewis and Harry Belafonte.

I started reading Eric Foner's Reconstruction a few years ago, to try to better understand the surprising hostility in some quarters to Obama's presidency.

(I also watched Griffith's 1915 film Birth of a Nation for the first time, and was truly shocked by the venality of that horrific mythology.)

What happened, historically, to JFK and RFK's Civil Rights legacy reminds me, to some extent, of what happened to Ulysses Grant.

The best books I have read on the subject, along with Foner and James McPherson's outstanding Battle Cry of Freedom, are Grant's own fabulous Memoirs, (a 19th century bestseller, for good reason) the Grant biography by McFeely, (I haven't read the new Ron Chernow biography yet) and Ari Hogeboom's related biography of Rutherford Hayes.  Hayes maintained a peculiar, sincere belief until late in life that the Southern aristocracy would protect the rights of the freed slaves after 1877.  His delusion was fostered by unfamiliarity with the South, and an old college friend from Texas who corresponded with him for years, assuring him of the noblesse oblige of the plantation caste, etc.

Meanwhile, Ulysses Grant-- the most popular American of the 19th century -- has been remembered largely as a drunken, inept grifter, while Robert E. Lee has been virtually canonized.

Likewise, LBJ has been lionized for the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, in sync with the continued character assassinations of Jack and Bobby Kennedy.

Edited by W. Niederhut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only read part one also.  The depth, taking the subject back in time brought back a memory of the naivety of the innocence of my youth.  From working at our drive in grocery NW of Dallas about 20 miles in Grapevine, then a small town of 5182 people welcoming you per the sign coming into it.  This was about 72-73, I was 16-17.  Next door were some government built single story retirement apartments.  This tall lanky old man came in every day and bought a pack of L & M cigarettes.  He'd hang around a few minutes and shoot the breeze with my dad and other customers.  I don't remember how the subject came up but once he started talking about killing Nxxxxxx right and left in Tulsa back in the 20's.  Never having been around any blacks or real bigots I wondered, why?  He grinned, seemed proud, and I thought it sounded sick.

 https://tulsahistory.org/learn/online-exhibits/the-tulsa-race-riot/  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Outstanding piece of work, Jim, and highly relevant to our nation's current political and racial turmoil.

The only mainstream media production I have seen that focused on the Kennedy brothers' critical role in the Civil Rights movement is the recent Bobby Kennedy for President HBO series, which relied extensively on commentaries by African Americans involved in the Civil Rights movement, including Congressman John Lewis and Harry Belafonte.

I started reading Eric Foner's Reconstruction a few years ago, to try to better understand the surprising hostility in some quarters to Obama's presidency.

(I also watched Griffith's 1915 film Birth of a Nation for the first time, and was truly shocked by the venality of that horrific mythology.)

What happened, historically, to JFK and RFK's Civil Rights legacy reminds me, to some extent, of what happened to Ulysses Grant.

The best books I have read on the subject, along with Foner and James McPherson's outstanding Battle Cry of Freedom, are Grant's own fabulous Memoirs, (a 19th century bestseller, for good reason) the Grant biography by McFeely, (I haven't read the new Ron Chernow biography yet) and Ari Hogeboom's related biography of Rutherford Hayes.  Hayes maintained a peculiar, sincere belief until late in life that the Southern aristocracy would protect the rights of the freed slaves after 1877.  His delusion was fostered by unfamiliarity with the South, and an old college friend from Texas who corresponded with him for years, assuring him of the noblesse oblige of the plantation caste, etc.

Meanwhile, Ulysses Grant-- the most popular American of the 19th century -- has been remembered largely as a drunken, inept grifter, while Robert E. Lee has been virtually canonized.

Likewise, LBJ has been lionized for the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, in sync with the continued character assassinations of Jack and Bobby Kennedy.

LBJ took advantage of the situation for his own personal gain.  JFK and RFK's acts regarding Mississippi/Meredith, Alabama/Wallace and the welcoming of MLK and others to the Whitehouse helped set the stage for passage of the Civil Rights Act.  LBJ realized it was the popular thing to support after JFK's death nationwide excepting the south to help ensure His reelection and legacy.  JMO.  LBJ didn't really care about the plight of "Negros" personally.  He chunked rocks at them at his swimming hole to get them to leave to have it to himself in his youth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ron and and W. N.

 

The Tulsa Massacre was really frightening.   I mean they went after those people because they were middle class!  Just like in Ocoee Florida they had the audacity to want to vote!

And the Supreme Court and all those presidents made it worse.

As per LBJ, as the Risen books proves, he converted maybe one vote in 1964.  That was really JFK and RFK who got that bill passed, with help from Humphrey and Kuchel on the GOP side.

I thought the most interesting thing I discovered was the whole episode about the War on Poverty not being LBJ's idea, but he tried to pass in off as if it was.  And then he screwed it up by dumping Dave Hackett who had been working on it for three years! And RFK warned him what would happen without Hackett.

And then, as RFK predicted again, America  started to burn in 1965 with Watts.  And it went on until 1968.  And that gave Reagan and Nixon their opening to crack the Democratic coalition, along with Vietnam of course.

 It really makes me sick that we went from JFK, to Johnson, and then Nixon.  Its like Dwight Macdonald said, "Its rather discouraging when your Dump Johnson movement works and then you get----Nixon."

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an important piece of work and it will take me a while to go through it slowly and carefully.

Jim, do you think that the JFK's pro-integration policy had actually mobilised the Dallas police against him so that it was then natural for many of them to collude in the assassination plot? I read books about Dallas history and about the roots of white supremacy in Texas in the sixties and earlier, and have also contacted Bill Minutaglio to ask him if he could explain me the weight of the integration issue in Dallas in the sixties. It was a major issue, maybe the leitmotif of Dallas life in 1963. Many police officers had their houses in Oak Cliff and the housing integration threatened to de-evaluate their homes and push them out. Further, a police officer 1960' would be right- or ultra-right,  a racist, a member of a Baptist community, possibly a member of KKK, and he would not treat black people as equal. With JFK stepping on gas with integration, the aversion towards JFK in the ranks of Dallas police grew too.

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andrej.

My short answer is yes.

I mean take a look at how Joe McBride analyzes the Dallas police force and how many Klan guys were in it.  Also get a load of what Joe says about Bill Alexander.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add, I wrote this for the reasons I stated above, because the MSM was trying to distort the record.   Which is why I went after those four guys.

But once I got to part 3, I began to think that hey, this would provide good motivation for the cops in the south, specifically, Dallas to do what they did in this case.

If we recall, Kennedy made his national address on TV in June, just five months before the assassination.  And then he got behind the March on Washington, which was just three months before the assassination, and that was nationally televised also.

So yes Andrej, that would have impacted the case down there in Tarrant County.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just viewed the Joseph McBride interview on "OurHiddenHistory.com"

Must read.  Fills in so many blanks regards Tippet and racism and corruption in Dallas in 1963.

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does Joe.  

There are some thing I disagree with him about, but I think his book is state of the art on the Tippit murder and is a good antidote to Dale Myers.

Joe did a lot of research on the police force and got some interesting interviews to give us some insight into that mentality.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have replied more specifically to W. N.

I have no idea why Hayes would be such a sucker.  If that is what it was.  But that was just a terrible decision since it betrayed Lincoln, and the Republican party.  From then, with the help of Grant's appointees to the Supreme Court, the GOP became the party of business, and as I noted, they expanded the 14th amendment for corporations as they reduced it for the freedmen. The whole thing about corporations having the rights of persons etc.

 

The other thing about the canonization of Lee, I totally agree with that.  Never understood it.  Why not build a statute of him whipping his slaves?  And this is why I never liked the Ken Burns series about the civil war.  To give that whole Lost Cause crap so much time with the foremost apologist for it, Shelby Foote,, that was just not excusable.  Burns made Foote a millionaire. But then of course, he did the same thing with his series on Vietnam.  He actually tried to say there was something noble about it, as he softened just how bad it really was.

 I mean three presidents contemplated using atomic weapons there: Ike, LBJ and Nixon.  Did Burns bring that up? Heck no. And to never mention NSAM 263 and what Kennedy did to see it through a reluctant cabinet?  

But anyway, this is getting some nice complements from people who were bamboozled by the MSM assault.  Hopefully it will have some kind of effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I should have replied more specifically to W. N.

I have no idea why Hayes would be such a sucker.  If that is what it was.  But that was just a terrible decision since it betrayed Lincoln, and the Republican party.  From then, with the help of Grant's appointees to the Supreme Court, the GOP became the party of business, and as I noted, they expanded the 14th amendment for corporations as they reduced it for the freedmen. The whole thing about corporations having the rights of persons etc.

 

The other thing about the canonization of Lee, I totally agree with that.  Never understood it.  Why not build a statute of him whipping his slaves?  And this is why I never liked the Ken Burns series about the civil war.  To give that whole Lost Cause crap so much time with the foremost apologist for it, Shelby Foote,, that was just not excusable.  Burns made Foote a millionaire. But then of course, he did the same thing with his series on Vietnam.  He actually tried to say there was something noble about it, as he softened just how bad it really was.

 I mean three presidents contemplated using atomic weapons there: Ike, LBJ and Nixon.  Did Burns bring that up? Heck no. And to never mention NSAM 263 and what Kennedy did to see it through a reluctant cabinet?  

But anyway, this is getting some nice complements from people who were bamboozled by the MSM assault.  Hopefully it will have some kind of effect.

This is important historical perspective. Thank you Jim DiEugenio. 

I was struck early in Part 1 by the fact that Southern power structures and individuals were left in place. As a result Reconstruction was a failure, undermined at every turn. When I think about our current predicament, the constitutional crisis we are now facing, the hatred of the ‘other’ that plagues our body politic, it reminds me that we made the same mistake after WW 2. The Nazis were not stripped, they were incorporated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree on both points Paul.  

McCloy did not complete the deNazification process in Germany.  And then he and Dulles imported all those Gehlen guys into US intel.  Terrible decision.

In the south, once Sumner and Stevens passed on, and Hayes agreed to that deal, it was all downhill for generations.

This is why the south fought so hard against Brown vs Board.  The more I learn about the Eisenhower/Nixon regime, the worse they get.  See, they really created that huge mess for Kennedy to eradicate. But it was actually worse since they tacitly were in sync with the south, which Truman was not.  That is why Truman made those tough speeches against Ike in 1952.

If you read Newman's second volume, and you read these essays, man Eisenhower had a really good press for way too long.  I mean how along can you float on the interstate highway system and your farewell address.  And BTW, when JFK tried to pass a modest voting rights act in 1962, Ike says its unconstitutional!  That is like saying the 15th amendment is unconstitutional.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×