Dr. Hardwick and all,

As so well presented by David N. Mayer, a professor of law and history and member of the Scholars' Commission on the Jefferson-Hemings Matter, there is indeed a politicization of the TJ-SH Myth, which is widespread in the American History world beyond that.  It permeates your profession, due to "...the rise of three related phenomena in higher education -- the 'political correctness' movement, multiculturalism, and post-modernism -- (that) helps explain why the TJ-SH myth has become so readily accepted today, not only by the American general public but also by scholars who should know better."

Among other topics, Mayer goes on to address how many American historians have resigned their memberships in historians' professional organizations (AHA and OAH) due to the growing political radicalism mentioned above.  In fact, Mayer says, and I quote due to its importance: "...scholars feel pressured to accept the Jefferson-Hemings myth as historical truth. White male scholars in particular fear that by questioning the myth -- by challenging the validity of the oral tradition "evidence" cited by some of the Hemings descendants -- they will be called racially "insensitive," if not racist....and, among many proponents of the Jefferson paternity claim there has emerged a truly disturbing McCarthyist-like inquisition that has cast its pall over Jefferson scholarship today." 

Continuing: "Questioning the validity of the claim has been equated with the denigration of African Americans and the denial of their rightful place in American history. In this climate of scholarly and public opinion, it requires great personal courage for scholars to question the Jefferson paternity thesis and to point out the dubious historical record on which it rests."

And, "In both the preface and conclusion to her book, Professor Gordon-Reed quite directly admits that her mission is to expose the "troubling, --i.e., racist -- assumptions made by historians who have denied "the truth of a liaison between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.""

So, with this knowledge, why would anyone wish to read her latest book.  It's yet another one of a series, a 'team' effort intended to tear down Thomas Jefferson's image and legacy, piece by piece.  As to further politicization, it is self-admittance when Joseph Ellis (as at least once-leader of the Monticello Foundation historians' group) says that tearing down Jefferson is paramount as "the dead-white-male who matters most" and the "most valued trophy in the cultural wars."  How more clearly political can this be...!!

How well must this politicization be hid from some scholars, for it not to be readily recognized and openly discussed.

I recommend viewers read Mayer's entire presentation here, it's very informing and only requires a few minutes:

http://www.ashbrook.org/articles/mayer-hemings.html

Mayer doesn't speak alone, there are many more articles by prominent historians in the history journals.


Neil McDonald


----- Original Message ----- 

From: <[log in to unmask]>

To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] FW: Censorship and the Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings Controversy


>I guess I am really confused here.  I have read AGR's books.  I disagree with her assumptions, and am bemused by the deep attention she gives to what, to me, seems like a relatively minor episode..... I do not find it to be a seminal work, that changes the way we think about slavery and its meaning in American history and American culture. <snip>
> 
> But just what do we take AGR's *political* point to be?  I do not see in her work, for example, an argument for greater government oversight of the economy.  I don't see an argument for public ownership of business enterprise.  I do not see ...<snip>
> 
> What I do see as a focus of the book is an insistence that slavery distorted fundamental human relationships.  I see a powerful focus on the humanity of the slave, and a protracted condemnation of slavery for the toll it exerted on the humanity of everyone who came into contact with it.  In this sense, AGR has simply extended Jefferson's own criticism of slavery in NOTES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA.  Just like Jefferson, and with considerably greater psychological nuance, AGR demonstrates that the experience of owning slaves corrupted the humanity of the slaveowner, as well as the slave.  We don't really want to condemn this author for being quintessentially Jeffersonian now, do we?  There is a deep irony in the criticism presented by some on this list, Mr. South among them--if we don't like AGR's argument about slavery, then we pretty much also have to dislike Jefferson's.  But doesn't that pretty much mean Jefferson's ardent defenders on this list are throwing the baby out with!
> !
> the bathwater?  <snip>
> 
> I just do not see how the focus of this book, in today's political environment, can be said to be all that controversial. <snip> 
> 
> Mr. South tries to impose a political agenda on the book that AGR has written.  But he can only do that because, manifestly, he has not actually *read* the work.
> 
> All best,
> Kevin
> 

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