Historical
Consultant
As an interview subject for this project, we discussed our work with local author and historian David Chandler. His published work, Legends on the African Frontier is a strong example of a historical archive, outlining the lives of ivory hunters, colonizers, and local Africans all involved in the encroaching imperialism. Chandler’s insight proved valuable in understanding how to present our information in a manner that could both be understood, but also did not simply issues to just single stories. Additionally, Chandler's historical knowledge helped us understand the concepts we were researching. This includes information on the early accumulation of wealth, as well as a general understanding of how family money can stay in families.
Chandler also has an interesting understanding and connection to the Kennedy assassination, as his father, a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter and author was mentioned in the Warren Commision due to his relationship with Clay Shaw and Jim Garrison (who was the best man at his wedding). The father drafted a book that never ended up being published with inside information on the case unknown to really anyone who
was not there themselves.
Sections of the interview can be found below:
“As an author, historian, and (former) active member of a union maybe discuss how history is typically remembered and accessed by the average lay person, and how that could (and maybe should) change.”
“History is foreign to the average person; they only know canned fictionalized history. A one-hour documentary on the History Channel (which insists on placing Nostradamus, ancient aliens, and Bigfoot in the 'history' category) is about the only historical knowledge the average person gets. The problem arises because, having seen that documentary, they consider themselves knowledgeable on whatever the subject is. The only way to know a subject with any degree of accuracy -assuming you weren't there and don't have access to a bunch of folks who were there- is to read all the available important literature on the subject (all points of view) and digest it that way. takes years. Even my own book represents my personal interpretation of the facts contained.
A couple of points. Always remember that any book or TV documentary is presenting the view point of the author. For example, Jack Ruby (the man who killed Oswald) was a Dallas nightclub owner who as a kid ran numbers for Al Capone and who made dozens of phone calls to important Mafia figures in the weeks before JFK assassination. Many mainstream writers dismiss him as a nut and claim the mob connections existed because Ruby was a halfwit who liked hanging around tough guys. Other writers claim it is what it is: he was obviously connected to the mob and the proof is the amount of contact he had with mob figures. I don't know myself (I wasn't there) but it strikes me as hypocritical that the mainstream writers, if they wanted to prove Ruby was mobbed up, would certainly use the exact same evidence to 'prove' it.
The important thing to remember about history is that there are multiple sides to every incident. After the Battle of Waterloo Wellington was asked why he didn't write a history of it. His answer was that a battle was like a ball (in the party sense) as every participant's view of the battle was dramatically different; his view as commander of the Allied army was different than that of some poor sod who manned a cannon in the same army, and different from the recollections of members of the French or Prussian armies. His own viewpoint had no more or less validity than that of a Belgian drummer boy.”
“We are interested in how families of note in America keep their wealth and influence through generations. Our thesis is in regards to the Kennedy's as a dynasty- the New England royal family if you will- and how such families keep power in general.”
“Rich people stay rich because they don't touch the capital, the investment fund. When rock stars and lottery winners get a ton of money they buy new boats and houses; Jose Canseco bought leopards and other exotic wildlife for his own private zoo. Five years after leaving baseball he was broke. In the traditional European and America rich and upper middle class families there was always a bunch of money put aside as capital; it was used for investment and no other purpose. You did not touch the capital even if the roof was falling off your house. If your investments were successful (which they usually were as rich people could purchase political power just like they do today) you could skim off the surplus for luxuries, but you did not touch the base fund.
The political power certainly helps as well as the election system and the laws are heavily biased in favor of the rich.
When Joe Kennedy became filthy rich from the bootlegging (he was already well off but the booze put him in a new category) he immediately invested in a wide variety of industries, especially film studios. If memory serves me right his first studio he bought was FBO (I'm too lazy to look it up), then right around the transition from silent pictures to sound movies he took over RKO, a major studio. The ownership of film studios had a side benefit of access to and control over young actresses which Joe took full advantage of (Gloria Swanson was one of the biggest stars of her time, bringing in over $10,000 a week in the 1920s, and Joe kept her as a concubine for years).”