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
|
