Representations of History:
Telling Stories, Developing Analyses
While all historians attempt to present research and theories in an objective
manner, it is impossible to process information without developing some sort of
interpretation based on our own personal backgrounds and biases.
This webpage, done for our Historiography 300 class with Professor Luis
Figueroa is designed to explore how a historical analysis develops. Our group, which
includes Kathleen Clark, Nate Amory, William Gambrill, John Davis, Ethan Lewis, and Rob
Segan, has chosen to look at the various interpretations of the assassination of John F.
Kennedy, a tragic event around which there are many hotly contested theories.
Many thought Kennedy represented a new hope for America while others thought of
him as nothing but a young upstart with little political promise. No matter how he is
regarded as a president, his death and the subsequent controversy surrounding the killer
or killers, conspiracy or no conspiracy, is a hot button issue to this day.
We have chosen to look in depth at three of the more prevalent theories
surrounding his death and to show the viewer of this website how important historical
interpretation and representation are to the "facts" we see in everyday life.
Rob and Ethan worked on the Warren Commission theory, Nate and William worked on the
theory of Cuban involvement, and John and Kathleen worked on the theory of FBI, CIA and
Mafia involvement.
Click on the links at the left to see the work from each of the three
interpretations, the links on the right to see our resources and conclusions, or continue
on this page to see the information from our poll of professors and students about their
thoughts on who President Kennedy's assassin really was.
This issue is coontrovessial because of its many interpretations and how these
interpretations have become the truth to some. Here are the results from an
unscientific survey of Trinity students and faculty.
