Jeff and all,
I have indicated earlier that I will refrain from further discussion of the
TJ-SH conversation but upon seeing an announcement that Annette Gordon-Reed
is in a race for a great award at one of the "great award" groups, I find
that I must forward more information to the concerned VA-HIST reader. You
and I and certain other readers, several who have contacted me personally,
WISH to hear more and you DESERVE to hear more. Yes, regarding this
particular controversy MUCH censorship, false reporting, denial of
publishing of letter-to-editor, is an everyday occurrence for those of us
who oppose slanted, biased and a refusal to publish "the other side of the
story." Many letters-to-editor have been sent to the Charlottesville
community newspapers but not published for "for some reason", couldn't be
that the former editor of the daily paper is a public relations director at
Monticello, could it???? Could it be that the whole Charlottesville area is
a victim of CENSORSHIP?
1. Dr Foster started this whole misunderstanding by testing a KNOWN
carrier of the Jefferson DNA, John Weeks Jefferson, per Eston Family long
tradition that they descended from "A Jefferson uncle" meaning Randolph.
THEN he WITHHELD (deception or censorship, you decide), this fact from
Nature and others.
2. Nature did NOT know of any other Jeffersons available, he didn't tell
them, thus they wrote the false headline, "Jefferson fathers slave's last
child", they could write it because he never told them of other suspects
(censorship or deception)...you fill in the blanks? In the later Jan 7, 1999
issue of Nature he did clarify his findings and ADMIT that other Jeffersons
were suspect also.
3. Dr Foster appeared at a Monticello media event WITHOUT my comments on
the Jefferson DNA or family genealogy, even though I pleaded to be present,
(censorship, denial or deception indicated)...you determine?
4. Dr. Daniel Jordan, Monticello President, grabbed the study with Dr
Foster's NON historical (he's a retired pathologist) NOT a
historian and has told me so, explanation that "the simplest explanation"
was that it may have been TJ who fathered Eston Hemings. (Is this censorship
or deception and denial of another point of information?)
5. Many Washington Post writers were completely "burying" Mr. Jefferson
in unproven and biased reporting and I complained to the Post ombudsman. It
took this accurate and truthful lady six months to study my complaints and
finally issue a long and great article, "blast" 8 of that paper's reporters
for bias and misreporting and identified them by name.
6. Certain reporters at NYT do the same thing and I have complained
also to that paper's ombudsman (they use another name), but after many, many
months there is yet NO reply. One reporter, Brent Staples, continuously
writes unproven statements and lately has appeared with Annette Gordon-Reed
at a book signing event. I have sent him articles.no publishing of my
letters and equally true of letters-to editors there. (Is this censorship
and the denial of opposing views?)
7. When A&E Biography and PBS Frontline wanted to produce a Sally
Hemings special they called me to participate and sent a crew to interview
me. For about an hour I was interviewed (Biography in my home) and PBS at
the Monticello Cemetery) and neither ever allowed a word to get to the
public. (Is this censorship or is this political correctness in an attempt
to revise history?)
8. I asked Dan Jordan, Monticello President, to assist in the Monticello
study, he chose all Monticello employees, and I sent him many of my research
papers and a video of the entire study. I am informed that the researchers
never saw these important study materials. (Censorship and biased denial of
research that could have resulted in a much different evaluation?)
9. One of the above employees, Dr. Ken Wallenborn, a long time guide
there, saw bias and pre-determined determined to find Mr. Jefferson guilty
at any cost and he wrote a Minority Report that "was swept under the carpet"
by Dan Jordan. Even some of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation Board
members were not aware of this most undesirable and detestable action. When
I raised a vigorous complaint then Dr. Jordan apologized to Dr. Wallenborn.
(Is this censorship by those in command, is it a deceitful attempt to stifle
oppositional research from the "other side?"
10, Shortly after Dr Foster turned the DNA Study results over to Dr.
Jordan and he launched his study, Chaired by an African-American oral family
history specialist, (they only convened for a short period of about three
months), there was a slavery conference held at UVA. The usual "friendly
book authors crowd", Dr Foster, the Monticello representatives, including
Dianne Swann-Wright, Chairman of the biased Monticello Study, Annette
Gordon-Reed, Prof. Peter Onuf, owner of the Monticello History Chair at UVA,
Prof. Jan Lewis, co sponsor of the forum and historian at Rutgers (where
Annette Gordon-Reed now holds forth as a historian), some Hemings relatives
and others. I was denied a seat at the panel even though Prof Onuf had
invited me down there. Upon arrival I was embarrassed and asked to sit among
the large audience and express my views in ONE question or statement when
asked to approach the open mike by moderator, NAACP Chairman, Julian Bond,
who is one of 10 prominent African-Americans on the Monticello Getting Word
Project. It is this project that had input to the official Monticello DNA
Study by Chairman, Dianne Swann-Wright who also headed the study.
(Anyone note any censorship, or denial of access to be seated?)
Many members at this UVA Slavery Forum traveled around to various campuses
at Randolph-Macon Women's College, University of Richmond, Yale and others
to dispense this "one sided and biased information. Please remember that
these "authorities and experts" were NOT DNA Study experts, I and Dr Foster
were. At the Randolph Macon Women's College a thoroughly disgusting
professor of history, Prof. d'entremet was most unkind and degrading to
those of us who would "DARE oppose their thoughts" and he even, in a most
unprofessional manner, accused us of believing in the "flat earth policy,
whatever that means. Someone mentioned that we were "CRAZY" but Annette
Gordon-Reed did disagree with that statement but added her own unflattering
assessment of us. Yes, I have the video of both the UVA and RMWC forums.
Jeff, I have tried to be as brief and informative as possible here but there
is MUCH more to this agenda being played out on the unsuspecting public.
Herb Barger
Jefferson Family Historian
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 1:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Moderation
I would be pleased to hear more. I get sick of the character assassination
of a great American who is not available to defend himself, and who few seem
willing to defend in this PC world we are in.
Jeff Southmayd
In a message dated 10/16/2008 1:31:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Mr. J. South,
You are entirely correct. He or she who holds the mike, camera or pen
controls the public's image as I have found in the ten years of trying to
get the truth of the TJ-SH out to the public. The same holds true for those
who control "POISON" mikes, cameras and pens. If anyone is interested in
hearing more please advise. Note the earlier post about the Annette
Gordon-Reed book award being proposed......AND she will win....in my
opinion.
Herb Barger
Jefferson Family Historian
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 3:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Moderation
Let's be honest, censorship is what is being sought. What is the problem
with admitting that?
Censor
1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as a: an official who
examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b:
an
official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and
deletes
material considered sensitive or harmful ;
Censorship
1 a: the institution, system, or practice of _censoring_
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring)
b: the actions or practices of _censors_
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censors) ; especially :
_censorial_
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorial) control exercised
repressively
J South
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
______________________________________
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
_____
New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining,
Movies, Events, News & more. Try
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211031713x1200669822/aol?redir=htt
p://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002> it out!
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
