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
|