On May 5, 2008, at 10:49 PM, Anne Pemberton wrote:
>
> SNIP.....
As a kid, in the spring during the herring runs, I'd watch a crowd of  
herring go into whatever plant that could grow in the miserably  
polluted James River at Hopewell while they created a whirlpool by  
going around in tiny circles until they tired of it and moved out. And  
in a few minutes, another group would take their place. The river kept  
on going and smoothed out. I'm reminded of that with the style of  
argument over the last few days.
>
>
> As I've mentioned before, one of my nephews is a descendent of  
> Madison Hemings, and he is definitely white as are his father and  
> grandparents. So, characterizing the descendents of Eston Hemings as  
> white and Madison Hemings as black is not up to your standards of  
> accuracy;.
If both are descendants of Sally Hemings, then one side appears to  
have had the "luck" of the genetic draw to have genes that dominated  
the African physical appearance characteristics. That one side might  
"pass" as white has no real bearing on whether they were discernible  
under the "one drop rule". That was then and is largely now the  
criteria set unless by dint of genealogical research, an African  
ancestor might be uncovered. But in the final analysis, it's  
irrelevant anyway.
>
>
> And, as a reminder, again on your standards of accuracy, your  
> statement that there is NOTHING to prove that TJ fathered children  
> by Sally Hemings, is not a true statement. Oral history stands as  
> proof in the absence of conflicting data.
What a load of absolute codswallop. Oral history is not a proof, not  
even remotely. It is a thread in an argument, but not in itself  
dispositive and cannot stand in the stead of a proof. Argument is not  
a proof. Hearsay is not proof. There is a mile of difference between  
what history has sometimes recorded and what is regarded as proof. If  
you want proof, you go after hardcore science to get there. Otherwise,  
it's all open to far more interpretation than is useful. The 300 odd  
messages in this thread are your "proof" thereof;)

Oral history definitely has a place and rightfully so. But there are  
oral histories that are not valid. What it does is provide a challenge  
to go to work on and push the interpretation of evidence as far as the  
evidence allows. The trick is to extract the nugget of truth from the  
whole.

> Oral history must be preserved - otherwise history falls to the  
> wayside as the province of the privileged - ignoring the history and  
> stories of those who were not gifted with the opportunity to read  
> and write.
That's precisely where a great amount of archaeological effort has  
been since the 1960's. Oral history is a significant and relatively  
small part of the data set upon which interpretation of evidence is  
made. For that matter, due to casual loss, intentional destruction,  
fire, plague, pestilence, you pick the malady and just plain old  
multiplication of time, most of human history is not written. History  
is so absolutely biased in its selectiveness anyway. Any writer will  
focus on an event and the virtually infinite "rest" is not recorded.

Now if you want to consider something that was hardly ever written  
about, but which everyone did, try 17th century and earlier bathroom  
procedures. John Smith, prolific writer that he was, and others in  
that early colonial period, provided no insight into the Native  
American procedures, nor about the early settlers, except perhaps  
obliquely wherein folks were attacked when outside the settlements.  
But does he actually say that they were caught with their trousers  
around their ankles?

Lyle Browning



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