This discussion has demonstrated, among other things, the confusion we produce when we  fail to differentiate between history and what might be called heritage.  The problem  is not that we lack conclusive evidence on which to base our answer to the main question: Did Jefferson father any of  Hemings' children? It is, rather, that all or most parties to the discussion appear to have a personal stake in the answer. Not having such a stake is one of the prerequisites (but not the only one!) for writing objective history. Having a stake, in contrast, takes us--almost by definition--off the track of historical inquiry and onto the parallel track of heritage fabrication. We fashion a heritage--usually as part of some group (nation, region, ethnic group)--in order to forge an identity out of bits and pieces of history, myths, legends, values. Heritage thrives on error; it cannot serve its purpose--to make the members of a group happy with (even inspired by!) its so-called past--without getting the real history wrong. The attempt to get the history right, let the chips fall where they may, is always a disappointment to heritage-seekers. 

Why can't we be content with real history and somehow move beyond the need for the distortions produced by heritage? We don't really know, but quite possibly it (heritage) is what our brains are programmed by human evolution to produce and favor. In comparison, the history in which we have no personal stake is rather colorless and bland... or just complicated, offering no clear lessons. Objectivity exacts a high price in detachment.

On heritage and history, see David Lowenthal's Possessed by the Past; on the brain, Cordelia Fine's A Mind of Its Own.

Doug Deal
History/SUNY Oswego


______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html