I want to vouchsafe Henry's endorsement of Jurretta's points.
Although it happens all the time, even in scholarly discourse, the
presumption that one can project current social mores and views on a
period in the distant past leads to folly.  The recent HBO series,
Rome, made a point of emphasizing the radically different social view
of the Romans.  More recently, and to move the conversation away from
just slavery, because that is only one of the areas where projection
occurs, the concept of addiction that so dominates much of our public
health policy conversation did not exist in the 18th century.  Over
use, and intemperate use, was understood, but the idea of drug
dependency as a psychological state and medical condition in the
modern context did not exist.  We need to see these people on their
own terms, not ours.

-- Stephan



On 8 Dec 2005, at 12:46, Henry Wiencek wrote:

> I'd say that Jurretta hits a number of nails on the head in her
> post, and
> does so eloquently, again.  By laying out so clearly the
> differences between
> 21st- and 18th-century world views/social/racial views, Jurretta
> implicitly
> warns us of the dangers of presentism.  We can't just go back and
> try to
> separate sheep from goats by our lights, nor should we, as Mr.
> Dixon puts
> it, hang a bull's-eye on anyone's back.
>
> Jurretta makes a subtle but all-important distinction regarding GW:
> he freed
> his slaves but in all likelihood viewed them as inferior social and
> political beings.  But GW's breakthrough was this: he knew that
> there would
> always be people at the bottom of society, but those people should
> not be
> enslaved.  And I think that the "education clause" in GW's
> emancipation is
> striking.  When he stipulated that the freed children be taught to
> read and
> write he wasn't just talking about the favored few, the house
> servants and
> their offspring; he was talking about the children of field hands.
> I think
> that's remarkable.
>
> Phil Morgan and I disagree on a number of points.  In some
> instances I think
> he has misread my book.  He and I had a lively and friendly email
> exchange
> about his article (he was kind enough to send it to me in advance of
> publication) and we recently appeared together as speakers at a
> Mount Vernon
> seminar.  I stand in admiration of Prof. Morgan's distinguished
> body of work
> but I also stand by what I wrote.
>
> Henry Wiencek
> Charlottesville
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

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