Hello Kevin,

I sent you the email after I had read your post regarding the texts you use 
in your classroom, that AGR's books cost too much, etc. So this email has 
nothing to do with your classroom. My question is how you can come to the 
conclusion, even if only on the VA-HIST internet web site, even after 
reading other established genealogists and historians works that I quote in 
the information I just sent you, and that you could easily or should have 
already read, that you find it reasonable to conclude based your reading and 
study that it is most likely that TJ was the father of any or all of Sally 
Heming's children. I quickly looked through my stack of recent emails for 
your exact words and didn't find it. I now have 226 emails to read, and have 
an emergency appointment today with my laser eye surgeon as I may have more 
retinal bleeding, and if so promptly require additional laser surgery. But I 
went to the most recent emails in case you did reply.

I'm sorry for your unnecessary added concerns. I am not referring to your 
classroom. I don't think I was vague when I state that (to the degree of 
their public influence), academicians must be held accountable for at least 
some objectivity. At a minimum they should state in the book and the book 
paper cover prominent disclaimers that their work is based on their take of 
history, their imagination about it, and that it is fiction, AND THAT SOME 
BASIC AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION HAS BEEN IGNORED, for the sake of their 
story. Additionally, I have observed during my limited recent exposures to 
this web site, a gang up against those that would not ignore the information 
in such books as JEFFERSON VINDICATED by Cynthia H. Burton, and THE 
JEFFERSON-HEMINGS MYTH AN AMERICAN TRAVESTY published by The Thomas 
Jefferson Heritage Society; and I think this academic behavior is a height 
of deliberate ignorance and irresponsibility.

I appreciate that this is a web site about Virginia and to some extent is 
your play sandbox so to speak. But even I don't like to play in dirty 
sandboxes.

BEST WISHES,

Adrian


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 2:07 AM
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Annette Gordon-Reed praised by Edmund Morgan


> Ms. Zolkover writes:  "I hope I am not offending you as a professor that 
> teaches about Thomas Jefferson . . ."
>
> Its not clear precisely to whom she is writing--but since my words are 
> appended below her lengthy post, I presume this is addressed to me.
>
> Ms. Zolkover then writes:  "I emphatically question the motives of people 
> who have an agenda to publish BIASED AND MISINFORMING opinions and 
> conclusions [and to the extent that
> they ignore most pertinent scientific evidence and historic evidence, 
> LIES] about the very person who probably did the most, in his day, to end 
> slavery."
>
> Ms. Zolkover is admirably vague here.  But since it seems to me that this 
> is written in reference to *me*, it does seem that she does in fact intend 
> to question my *motives* in this conversation.  If her post is not 
> intended as a reply to me, then why quote my words, in the post history?
>
> I have in fact published nothing at all about Jefferson--my professional 
> standing in the academy (such as it is) does not rest on scholarship about 
> Jefferson.  I participate in this conversation mostly because, as a 
> historian of Virginia history who is paid to teach Virginia history by the 
> tax payers of the State of Virginia, I believe I have an obligation to do 
> so.  When I comment on what historians have written about Jefferson, and 
> on what I have read in the primary sources, and on what I find reasonable 
> to conclude based on my reading and study, I simply have nothing to gain, 
> either in reputation or financially, by speaking other than what I 
> believe.
>
> So--Ms. Zolkover--I do think that questioning my motives is rather rude of 
> you, despite your protestation above that you hope you are not offending 
> me.  I think at the very least you have been uncivil to me, and that 
> nothing that I have written warrants it.
>
> That said, I am not really offended, save only in the sense that I regret 
> that the civility in this thread has degenerated to such a degree that 
> even people who have participated in the thread in good faith are subject 
> to ad hominem attacks.
>
> We are Virginians--a people who once were famous for our civility.  We are 
> better than this.
>
> All best,
> Kevin
>
> Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
> Department of History
> James Madison University
>
> ______________________________________
> 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