No--it was late at night, and I neglected to write down Mr. Barger's name. So rather than risk mis-spelling it, I wrote the words more ambigiously. Sorry for the confusion--I was responding to Mr. Barger's post. All best, Kevin ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:20:33 -0400 >From: "S. Corneliussen" <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Jon Kukla's MR JEFFERSONS WOMEN and Sally Hemings >To: [log in to unmask] > >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 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