This seems to be indulging in the "middle ground" fallacy where both
sides of argument are framed as equally "extreme" and therefore it is
seemingly reasonable to split the difference.
I just don't see it that way--I don't think the answer to "We shouldn't
think the Founding Fathers were saints" is "We should deconstruct them
by 21st century social and cultural mores", but I also don't see that a
serious discussion of Jefferson's actions within the context of the
Revolution and the Early Republic is an exercise in what Roth described.
Apologies if I'm misreading your intent.
Kirk Johnson
Serials Manager
Prince William Public Library System
13083 Chinn Park Drive
Prince William, VA 22192-5073
(703) 792-4883
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Henriques
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] (VA-HIST] "The Monster of Monticello"
In his novel, The Human Stain, Philip Roth notes that one of America's
oldest communal passions is to indulge in the "ecstasy of sanctimony."
We feel good and morally superior by condemning the moral failings of
others, past and present. I think it is particularly important for
those of us dedicated to a study of the past to guard against falling
into the dangerous condition of the "ecstasy of sanctimony." It affects
those on both the right and left wings of the political spectrum.
Peter Henriques
In a message dated 12/11/2012 9:42:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Thank you! Very few extraordinary men have totally clean slates of
behavior. It seems a bit juvenile to condemn the man and everything he
accomplished instead of condemning the (disappointing and unexpected by
"fans") bad behavior as a part of that human being. The emotion about
this subject never ceases to amaze me. Expecting our heroes to be
saints is very concrete thinking.
Sent from Melinda's
iPad
On Dec 11, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Steve Corneliussen
<[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Mr. Barger complained that Monticello's "emphasis...on slavery
issues"
comes "at the expense of Mr. Jefferson." To me that seems upside down.
The emphasis in fact honors Mr. Jefferson.
>
> Mr. Jefferson matters because self-evident but challenging truths
matter. It's too bad that Monticello, like the rest of us, failed for
many decades to begin elucidating and respecting the lives, dignity and
contributions of individual Americans obscenely oppressed by fellow
Americans -- including by Mr. Jefferson, the paradoxically slaveholding
human-rights idealist.
>
> If Monticello had continued its former Gone-with-the-Windism on
> slavery
late into the last century, if the curators had persisted in obscuring
Americans' lives on that mountain, it would have been the foundation's
civic, historical and moral negligence that would have come at the
expense of Mr.
Jefferson.
>
> But they got it right. Good for them. Good for self-evident truths.
>
> Good for Mr. Jefferson.
>
> Steven T. Corneliussen
> http://www.fortmonroenationalpark.org/
> http://tjscience.org/
> http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/science_and_the_media
>
> ______________________________________
> 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
______________________________________
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
|
