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
|
