Dr. Hardwick,

Your prior response today as well as the one below keeps addressing how I am 
making unwarranted claims and arriving at erroneous conclusions concerning 
AGR's *latest* book, including one grievous ecological fallacy error.  You 
are mistaken in your premise; her latest book is 'not' the subject of my/our 
discussion here, it's the entire TJ-SH controversy or myth.  That was made 
clear when I said, "So, with this knowledge (Mayer's essay including his 
criticism of AGR), why would anyone wish to read her **latest** book." 
(parenthetical clarification and emphasis added)

To refresh, you had originally concluded there was no political agenda in 
TGR's writings, to which I was responding -- to demonstrate that the entire 
TJ-SH myth, as presented by the Monticello Foundation and its supporting 
historians, is one big agenda containing the political devices that were 
described by Professor Mayer, and having many parts, players and works 
including AGR.  Ellis' words about TJ and the cultural wars also 
demonstrates their agenda.  I was not addressing AGR's latest work; in fact, 
I was dismissing it as simply a continuation of the samo-samo, based on 
reviews.  Professor Mayer was not addressing her latest work either.

It seems we should make our subjects more clear at this forum.  I felt my 
message was right-on and clearly stated.  But too often the same 
subject-heading is used for days while the discussion and people's thoughts 
meander.

Neil McDonald


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] FW: Censorship and the Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings 
Controversy


> Neil--
>
> The link you forwarded was quite useful--I have not read Mayer's essay 
> before, and found it generally persuasive and helpful.  I agree very much 
> with most of what he says.  I also took the opportunity to reread the 
> Scholar's Report, which I have not looked at in some time.  Just for the 
> record, I find myself in pretty much complete agreement with Paul Rahe's 
> analysis.
>
> None of which, of course, speaks at all to Annette Gordon-Reed's latest 
> work.
>
> When we analyze a scholarly argument, we need to do two things.  We need 
> to apprehend the thrust of the argument itself--what claims the author 
> takes herself to be advancing, and wishes to defend.  And we need to 
> assess the evidence on which the author makes her case.
>
> In the commentary thus far about AGR's latest book, almost all of our 
> attention has been directed to her evidence, and precious little at all to 
> the argument.  We have good reason to be suspicious of some of the 
> evidence.  You and I can agree that the book takes for granted conclusions 
> for which the evidence is, at best, inconclusive.
>
> But that does not warrant the kinds of claims you and others have made 
> about AGR's argument.  You simply have not examined *that* at all.  If we 
> are going to be fair and objective, we have an obligation either to 
> restrict our criticism to AGR's handling of evidence; or alternatively, to 
> make a good faith effort to state her argument in a way that she herself 
> would recognize as fair and intelligible.  Otherwise, all we are doing is 
> erecting a straw man.  Besides the fun of scoring debating points, what 
> real purpose does that really serve?
>
> I think when you do look at the argument the book puts forward, you will 
> find that it bears little resemblance to the criticisms you have been 
> making.
>
> 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