Neil--

Fair enough--thank you for the correction.  I hope my error is understandable, however.  I wrote my post very much about THE HEMINGS OF MONTICELLO, AGR's latest book.  When you responded to my post, appending it to your comments, I hope you will forgive my presupposition that we were continuing to talk about that book, and not about the controversy more generally.

While I by and large share Professor Mayer's pessimistic assessment of the state of American history, I have to say that the situation strikes me as very much improved over where it was ten years ago.  Historians publishing today have, by and large, repudiated the crazier positions with which many were toying a decade ago.  None of the historians who comment regularly on this list serv are (to my knowledge anyway) moral or cultural relativists, and none are nihilists either.   

You are mistaken about my original contention.  I did not say that there was no political bias in AGR's earlier work.  I can not say that with any responsibility, because I read it a long time ago, and did not read it with any great care then.  So I am not in a position to offer you a close analysis of AGR's earlier arguments, for better or worse.  

My comments were about AGR's latest work, which I have read, and about which I do feel able to comment responsibly.

I regret the miscommunication here.  I think, given the context within which it occurred, that my misreading of your post is understandable.  But I completely agree with you that it is very easy for miscommunication to happen, even when (as is the case here) all parties are working hard to communicate in good faith and with clarity.

I stand by my claim that if we want to assess a work, we have to read it first.  I do not think it is responsible to dismiss AGR's latest scholarship, simply because the earlier scholarship is (we both would seem to agree) flawed.  I can see why, given the earlier scholarship, one might be initially inclined not to bother with the later work--but that is not the same thing as dismissing that work as bad.  You can say "I do not trust this author to write objectively, given the nature of her earlier arguments, and so I will use my reading time elsewhere, on more reliable authors."  But you can not say, responsibly "the latest work of this author is bad."  To say that, you have to give the latest work an honest assessment--a fair read.

All best,
Kevin
---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:36:41 -0500
>From: macbd1 <[log in to unmask]>  
>Subject: Re: FW: Censorship and the Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings Controversy  
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Dr. Hardwick,
>
>Your prior response today as well as the one below keeps addressing how I am 
>making unwarranted claims and arriving at erroneous conclusions concerning 
>AGR's *latest* book, including one grievous ecological fallacy error.  You 
>are mistaken in your premise; her latest book is 'not' the subject of my/our 
>discussion here, it's the entire TJ-SH controversy or myth.  That was made 
>clear when I said, "So, with this knowledge (Mayer's essay including his 
>criticism of AGR), why would anyone wish to read her **latest** book." 
>(parenthetical clarification and emphasis added)
>
>To refresh, you had originally concluded there was no political agenda in 
>TGR's writings, to which I was responding -- to demonstrate that the entire 
>TJ-SH myth, as presented by the Monticello Foundation and its supporting 
>historians, is one big agenda containing the political devices that were 
>described by Professor Mayer, and having many parts, players and works 
>including AGR.  Ellis' words about TJ and the cultural wars also 
>demonstrates their agenda.  I was not addressing AGR's latest work; in fact, 
>I was dismissing it as simply a continuation of the samo-samo, based on 
>reviews.  Professor Mayer was not addressing her latest work either.
>
>It seems we should make our subjects more clear at this forum.  I felt my 
>message was right-on and clearly stated.  But too often the same 
>subject-heading is used for days while the discussion and people's thoughts 
>meander.
>
>Neil McDonald
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html