Fair enough, Ms. Heckscher -- and again I apologize for my stupid misspelling. I agree with all of this, including the implication that there's some overstatement or maybe distortion in my linking my main question about one thing in your original posting to a cherry-picked later statement in the posting. I do note, though, that if you talk to Cyndi Burton, it turns out that she has her reasons for using a spun title for a book in a discussion that is not really, or at least not entirely, conducted in the normal academic way. Steve Corneliussen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jurretta Heckscher" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] "Jefferson defenders" vs. "Hemings partisans," cont. > Thanks very much, Mr. Corneliussen, for raising this fair-minded > question. > > The answer is that I have not read Ms. Burton's book, although that has > been more a function of time (this is not actually my area of current > research, and my reading time is limited!) than of absolute unwillingness > to do so, as I do find the Jefferson-Hemings question relevant enough to > my professional life in a couple of ways I need not detail here to wish > to keep abreast sooner or later of any genuinely new information in the > matter. Your recommendation, along with Henry Wiencek's, leads me to > believe that I ought to look at the Burton work on those grounds when I > can find the time to do so. > > "Jefferson Vindicated" may well be a useful entry in this hydra-like > debate, then. My point, however, was that by giving her work such a > title--rather than, say, "The Jefferson-Hemings History: A > Reconsideration," or something similarly neutral--Burton tips her hand, > automatically arousing skepticism in the mind of anyone who does not see > the matter as one of vindication vs. conviction and leading them to doubt > her objectivity in the inevitable supposition that she would not have > undertaken any research that could have led her to title her book > (equally tendentiously) "Jefferson Convicted." > > Your further point--expressed with admirable delicacy, I should add!-- > that by criticizing Burton without reading her book, I indulge the same a > priori accusation of bad faith with which I charge Mr. Barger, is fair > but not quite on the mark, I think. The difference is that I do have > evidence--her own book title--to question Burton's open- mindedness to > historical evidence, even before I have laid hands on her work. Mr. > Barger, by contrast, adduces no evidence for his shrill and sweeping > charges implying that individuals on this list (including myself) and the > numerous scholars he berates on Amazon.com suffer from biases of > "political correctness," "historical revisionism," or professional > gullibility--except that we disagree with him. > > I look forward to your response to my query on the statistical matter, > from which I expect to learn something--after which I will with pleasure > turn to the countless other subjects so long eclipsed on this list! > > --Jurretta > > > On May 6, 2008, at 7:01 AM, S. Corneliussen wrote: > >> Question for Jurretta Hecksher >> >> I owe, and am working to send, Jurretta Heckscher an answer about my >> arguments concerning what has been called the statistical pillar in the >> three-pillared paternity proof: historical evidence, DNA, and >> statistics. Meanwhile, something in Ms. Heckscher's thoughtful >> admonishment of Mr. Barger for his manners and zealous excesses has >> inspired a question from me to her. >> >> Ms. Hecksher, you wrote to Mr. Barger: >> >>> You refer to other >>> possible candidates for the paternity of SH's children as "suspects" >>> (e.g., in messages of April 29 and May 3). A genealogist whose work >>> you doubtless value discloses a similar outlook when she titles her >>> book on the relationship "Jefferson Vindicated`" (it is difficult to >>> believe that a book bearing such a title represents anything other >>> than a sustained attempt to reach a foreordained conclusion, which is >>> not how persuasive historical analysis is made). >> >> But you also wrote that you are "viscerally disinclined to take >> seriously the arguments of someone who deems [you] a priori guilty >> (sic) of bad faith." >> >> My question is: Have you actually read Cyndi Burton's _Jefferson >> Vindicated_? >> >> Maybe you have indeed read it. If so, I apologize sheepishly for >> challenging you on this point, and I'll return meekly to preparing the >> answer that I owe you about statistics -- except to say three more >> things: >> >> * Though I disagree with a lot of what Mr. Barger says and with much in >> his manner of saying it, I'll bet he does indeed value Cyndi's book, and >> so do I. Reading _Jefferson Vindicated_ made me a whole lot less >> confident about many of the paternity believers' arguments. In my view >> Cyndi's explorations of primary sources have led to valuable >> contributions to new knowledge about Hemings-TJ. I make my living >> working with physicists, and though I can usually follow what they say, >> I have no hope of attaining their level of knowledge. I feel the same >> way when I talk to Cyndi about Hemings- TJ, as I have done regularly for >> several years now. I also believe that I know the physicists well enough >> that I could tell if they were getting intellectually careless. They >> never do, which is why I admire them. Same with Cyndi. Nobody who cares >> about this controversy should fail to read her book. >> >> * I don't believe, as I noted once before in this forum, that University >> of Richmond history professor Woody Holton read _Jefferson Vindicated_ >> before posting a book review about it at Amazon.com -- a book review in >> which he nevertheless went so far as to tar Cyndi with an implied charge >> of white supremacism. (I admonished him as you've now admonished Mr. >> Barger.) >> >> * This whole episode, centered most recently on Mr. Barger's manners and >> zealous excesses, reminds me that Henry Wiencek might be right to >> accentuate the polarization by framing things as "Jefferson defenders" >> vs. "Hemings partisans" instead of as something like paternity >> disbelievers vs. paternity believers (though that's polarized too, I >> admit). Yes, Cyndi's book's title goes against the principles you refer >> to, Ms. Hecksher, when you talk about what "is not how persuasive >> historical analysis is made." But in this controversy, I'm not sure I >> fault her for it as you might do. Maybe she was only responding to a >> reality. Is this discussion really historical analysis, or do _both_ >> sides actually make it the polarized fight that Mr. Wiencek's chosen >> terms imply? >> >> Thanks very much. >> >> I remain, >> >> A paternity agnostic, >> >> Steven T. Corneliussen >> >> ______________________________________ >> 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 > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.9/1416 - Release > Date: 5/5/2008 5:11 PM > > ______________________________________ To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html