No--it was late at night, and I neglected to write down Mr. Barger's name. So rather than risk mis-spelling it, I wrote the words more ambigiously. Sorry for the confusion--I was responding to Mr. Barger's post.
All best,
Kevin
---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:20:33 -0400
>From: "S. Corneliussen" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Jon Kukla's MR JEFFERSONS WOMEN and Sally Hemings
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Yes, amen to what Professor Hardwick wrote below, and yes, of course, let's
>be precise about what others have actually said before taking issue with it.
>
>In the spirit of that precision, I note that he mentions the "over statement
>or misrepresentation of the DNA evidence, of the kind alleged by an earlier
>poster." Alleged? The word _alleged_ gets my notice. If I'm that earlier
>poster -- and maybe I'm not, in which case I apologize for troubling
>everyone -- I propose that the examples I gave are not allegations of
>overstatement or misrepresentation (or outright error), but clear examples.
>
>Just to repeat a clear example of outright error: In 2004, Science magazine,
>published by the world's largest scientific organization, in effect made law
>professor Lori Andrews the leading ethicist concerning what she rightly
>calls biohistory, the inclusion of biology in historical scholarship.
>Science did that by printing a major science ethics article on which she was
>the lead author, and in which the authors made clear that the DNA itself
>cannot distinguish among the (more than two dozen, scientifically speaking,
>but we'll stay off that headcount issue for the moment) paternity
>candidates. Only historical evidence can bear on candidate selection. Yet
>last year, in the widely circulated Sunday magazine Parade, Professor
>Andrews wrote:
>QUOTE
>Across the globe, scientists are using the latest medical and forensic
>techniques to investigate the behavior, diseases, causes of death and
>lineage of historic figures. Beethoven's hair has been analyzed to locate
>genes related to musical ability and to see if lead poisoning caused his
>eccentricities. Einstein's brain was tested for a genetic predisposition to
>aneurysm. And DNA analysis indicated that Thomas Jefferson fathered a child
>with his slave Sally Hemings.
>UNQUOTE
>
>DNA analysis did that? Hmmmmm.
>
>"DNA analysis of the Y chromosome," the reporting scientists wrote
>originally in Nature, "can reveal whether or not individuals are likely to
>be male-line relatives." That's all that DNA analysis can do. True, what
>those scientists called their "molecular findings" did reveal some important
>facts about male-line relationships, but the rest requires leaving the realm
>of science and entering the realm of historical evidence and historical
>interpretation.
>
>I can supply more examples of DNA overstatement, misrepresentation, and even
>outright error if you'd like to hear them, and I can inundate you with
>examples if we include journalists.
>
>And lest I be charged with dragging red herrings into the volatile,
>polarized paternity debate between Hemings partisans and Jefferson
>defenders, I reiterate that I'm in neither camp. I'm a paternity agnostic
>trying to defend the special authority of science from abuse in an important
>public discussion, not only because it matters here, but because it matters
>intrinsically.
>
>Again, however, I apologize if I have misconstrued Professor Hardwick's
>comment. Some of what appears in this forum can get pretty tiresome, and I
>don't want to contribute to that any more than I have to.
>
>Steven T. Corneliussen
>Poquoson, Virginia
>(and also Jefferson Lab, Newport News, Virginia)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ray Bonis" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:14 AM
>Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Jon Kukla's MR JEFFERSONS WOMEN and Sally Hemings
>
>
>> Amen.
>>
>> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>> Regarding Jon Kukla's argument in JEFFERSON'S WOMEN. If we are going to
>>> criticize someone, I think it only fair to state with accuracy what that
>>> person actually says. If we don't do that, we are guilty of the logical
>>> fallacy of creating a "straw man." So let's take a look at what Kukla
>>> actually has written.
>>>
>>> Kukla quotes James Callender: "the man [Jefferson], whom it delighteth
>>> the people to honor, keeps, and for many years past has kept, as his
>>> concubine, one of his own slaves. Her name is Sally." [p. 115]
>>>
>>> Kukla then says the following: "The accuracy of Callender's assertion
>>> has been disputed ever since he printed it, and his veracity may never be
>>> determined with *absolute* [italicized, in Kukla's book] certainty.
>>> Nevertheless, the available evidence now suggests that Callender was
>>> essentially correct about Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings."
>>> [p. 115]
>>>
>>> This seems pretty clear to me. In essence, Kukla is saying "we do not
>>> know for sure, but the weight of the evidence suggests to me, and to most
>>> other scholars today, that Callender was right." Note that Kukla makes
>>> no mention of the DNA evidence at this point, but he does offer a long
>>> footnote, in which he rather scrupulously details the major contributions
>>> to the dispute, both pro and con. If I had to guess, I would suspect
>>> that Kukla is most influenced by Annette Gordon-Reed's lawyerly brief in
>>> favor of Callender's claim, and not by the DNA evidence per se. But that
>>> is just a guess.
>>>
>>> With regard to the ancestry of Tom Woodson, Kukla offers the following:
>>> "Whether a young man late known as Tom Woodson had any connection to
>>> Sally Hemings or Monticello is a question that historians have debated
>>> for many years. It is one of the questions that was answered with
>>> certainty by DNA testing in 1998. There is no genetic connection between
>>> the Woodson and Jefferson or Hemings families." [p. 127]
>>>
>>> This also seems pretty cut and dry. Kukla is not concealing anything
>>> from the reader--he is reporting fairly what we *do* know with something
>>> akin to scientific certainty.
>>>
>>> In light of what Kukla has actually written, I do not see any over
>>> statement or misrepresentation of the DNA evidence, of the kind alleged
>>> by an earlier poster. Quite the contrary--Kukla has gone out of his way
>>> to offer a balanced and insightful account, which fully acknowledges both
>>> in the text and in the annotations the positions of those who disagree
>>> with him.
>>> This is model scholarship. You really can not ask for more in the way of
>>> careful, judicious scholarship than what Dr. Kukla has done in this
>>> elegant book. You may well *disagree* with him--but I do not see how any
>>> reasonable person can accuse him of concealing evidence, or of failing to
>>> acknowledge and confront the arguments of people with whom he disagrees.
>>>
>>> Back to grading exams. Feh!
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ray Bonis
>> Special Collections and Archives
>> VCU Libraries
>> 804-828-1108
>>
>> ______________________________________
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
>> at
>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1408 - Release
>> Date: 4/30/2008 6:10 PM
>>
>>
>
>______________________________________
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
>http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
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
|
