|
I should say up front: I tend to be pretty reluctant to get involved in wikis. I love what they support in theory, but I find that the majority of wikis are run as defacto oligarchies that feign public editing but with page guardians who undo even the most reasonable of changes if they're made by someone outside of or lower ranked in the community. Now, I'm giving Rational Wiki a chance here, because I approve and support the stated vision of a wiki dedicated to rationalist and free discussion. Let's see if this wiki rises above.
I have to say, some parts of this page are pretty ridiculous. Most of it is good, but the parts that talk about his relationship with slavery suddenly throw nuance out the window and give Jefferson a twirly mustache and devil horns. Slavery was a horrible, evil system, and it is horrifying to think it was ever considered acceptable. That is not what is to be discussed here though. For being part of an evil system does not make one evil by default. If it did, then anyone who drives cars would be evil for polluting the planet, anyone who eats meat would be evil for the death of innocent animals, anyone who buys products made in third world countries would be evil for perpetuating inhumane factory conditions. Considering that 99% of the people reading this have their fingers in at least one of these pies (in all likelihood, more) we can agree that being involved in an evil system doesn't necessarily make one evil themselves.
It is true we should show caution rather than to white wash historical figures. But to be frank, going too far in the opposite direction is a problem too. It perpetuates myths and misconceptions, and perhaps most importantly, lacks the subtlety that makes a source trustworthy and fair as opposed to biased. People can sniff out exaggerations and if allowed to stand it can cause people to question integrity. Furthermore, slavery is by its very nature a violation of human rights. One does not need to exaggerate the conditions of slaves when by virtue of being slaves at all they are subject to inhumanity, even under the best of treatment.
Examples which should either be cited or removed
"Jefferson was thrilled by the idea of child labor since it ensured that the children would not otherwise be idle and thus a waste of the plantation's resources." - He was THRILLED by it? Really? What's the source of that?
"Jefferson never had the guts to carry out punishments himself." - Where is the evidence that "guts" had anything to do with it? This is loaded phrasing.
"That also served a double purpose, as they effectively became hostages from the slave families back at Monticello, another way of ensuring that those slaves didn't attempt to escape or resist." - This is cited, but unless I missed it, it doesn't appear in the citation.
Examples of dubious or misleading statements, which should be reworded, clarified, or removed:
"His policies and rhetoric helped set the stage for the full-scale ethnic cleansing carried out by Andrew Jackson and his successors." - This suggests Jefferson and Jackson would have agreed on this topic. Jefferson believed Natives were equal to whites and both could and should integrate, Jackson believed Natives were savages. This belief of Jefferson's is never brought up.
"This is suspect, though: by 1808, when the legislation prohibiting the Transatlantic Slave Trade that Jefferson so enabled passed, Virginia (Jefferson's home state) was a net exporter of slaves at a scale significant to their economic stability" - Is this comment REALLY trying to suggest that Jefferson, who had been trying to legislatively fight slavery his whole career, only banned the slave trade to benefit Virginia economically? You could use this example to explain why the slave states were more willing to accept this proposal, but the idea it was Jefferson's motive is dubious at best. Again, citation needed.
"Jefferson himself actually came up with the economic formula that convinced many planters that "breeding" slaves would ensure a reliable profit, finding that slaves were actually the second-most valuable commodity in the country right after land." - From the source cited: "The irony is that Jefferson sent his 4 percent formula to George Washington, who freed his slaves, precisely because slavery had made human beings into money, like “Cattle in the market,” and this disgusted him." The fact that Jefferson apparently came up with this formula as a criticism of slavery is not mentioned, instead it being portrayed as if Jefferson supported this treatment.
"He had fewer compunctions about ordering them to beat the shit out of a slave. Gabriel Lilly was probably the worst. On one occasion, he had James Hemmings, a 17 year-old, beaten three times in one day until the boy couldn't lift his head just for being too sick to work." - This event occurred in 1804, when Jefferson was president, making it unlikely he had anything to do with it personally.
"Sadly, while Sally Hemmings is one of the most famous African-American women in history, very little is known about her thanks to Jefferson's efforts to keep her a secret." - This isn't the main reason, the main reason is that none of her writings (if she was literate at all) survive. It's not as if anyone would have cared about some random slave.
"The young Hemmings used her position as leverage to negotiate with one of the most powerful men in American history. And that ought to be acknowledged as the brave and impressive feat it was." - This wording implies that she had any real leverage over Jefferson at all. As soon as they were back in Virginia, he could have given her the middle finger and reneged, and there's not a thing she could have done. That Jefferson honored his word speaks far more to Jefferson and to his relationship with Sally than it does to Sally herself.
"This obviously qualifies as rape by any reasonable standard." - Find me one historian who agrees with this. The fact that the article originally stated the historical consensus on this topic only for it to be changed because of gut reaction is pretty antithetical to this wiki's principles. It's true and fair that one's gut reaction to this story is to assume rape, I know I did. But actually looking at the evidence from a rational perspective paints a totally different story. Hemmings was given a number of special privileges, many of which are mentioned in the article, and as I mentioned before Jefferson had no real incentive to act on these promises. Jefferson also never had relations with any other slave, a curious thing to note if one believes their relationship was one of lust and power. Hemmings was also the half sister of Jefferson's dead wife, so it would be odd for him to treat her poorly with that in mind. Again, no historian I've heard of claims their relationship had to have been rape, and many I've come across argue the reverse. Unlike randoms like you and I editing a wiki, historians have to actually put their money where their mouth is in making such claims, and it's very telling that not only do they not, but some argue the relationship was affectionate and consensual. (Also, tbh, it's quite rich that the argument would presumably go "slaves have no power over their owner" when the prior comment I mentioned suggests Sally did have leverage over Jefferson. It's like this article goes from "slaves had no free will and no options, no power, Oh but Sally used her power over Jefferson to get concessions, slay queen!" Absolutely absurd.)
Things which are not mentioned that should be:
Jefferson believed Natives were equal to whites, in stark contrast to many politicians both before his time and after (Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt). "I believe the Indian then to be in body and mind equal to the white man." - Letter to the Marquis de Chastellux (1785)
Jefferson believed blacks had human rights, and was excited by the possibility he was wrong about their inferiority. "Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunities for the development of their genius were not favorable, and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others." - Letter to Henri Grégoire (25 February 1809)
Sally Hemmings was Jefferson's late wife's half sister. (https://www.monticello.org/sallyhemings/)
Jefferson motivated his slaves with pay and gifts. He also went out of his way to avoid separating families and to reunite ones that had been. (Architect of American Liberty, Boles)
Prior to 1782, it was illegal to free slaves in Virginia. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/an-act-to-authorize-the-manumission-of-slaves-1782/
As of 1806, it was illegal in Virginia to free slaves unless they were resettled elsewhere. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/an-act-to-amend-the-several-laws-concerning-slaves-1806/
And then of course there should also be mention of the fact that Jefferson was in massive debt that he inherited from his father and step father. Freeing his slaves, assuming he even legally could, would have resulted in the family going broke. If Jefferson couldn't turn a profit with a massive free labor force, he certainly couldn't without. He also never would have been able to accomplish anything politically. (If you need a source, the Boles biography explains well.)
Furthermore, Jefferson did more than any other founding father to fight slavery. To this article's credit, his attempts to fight slavery are mostly mentioned. But it should also be mentioned that no other founder came close to this. As far as I know, Adams and Hamilton never did anything on slavery but gesture towards their opposition. Washington passed a fugitive slave law as President, so he actively went in the other direction in that instance. Franklin wrote a petition to abolish slavery late in his life, but he never did much of anything else. All of these figures with the possible exception of Adams also had their fingers in slavery, Hamilton traded slaves and Franklin owned a few.
In any case, I hope I've made my point clear. Hopefully this wiki will prove itself able and willing to respond reasonably to my criticisms. --Kasunex (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- If the philosopher of Race Charles Mills wasn't dead and above the dealings of a small tongue-in-cheek wiki he would have a field day with a post like this lol. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Mr "Strong proponent of critical thinking" 's response to reasoned and cited critique of the inaccuracies of an article is to just hand-wave it and laugh? Talk about hypocrisy. --Kasunex (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- "Consider, for example, the category of the “savage” and its conceptual role in the justification of imperialism. As Francis Jennings (1976) points out, the word was 'created for the purposes of conquest rather than the purposes of knowledge.' 'Savagery' and 'civilization' were 'reciprocals' and were 'both independent of any necessary correlation with empirical reality.' The conceptual outcome was a 'conjoined myth' that greatly distorted [white] Americans’ perceptions of reality,' necessarily involving 'the suppression of facts' (12, 10)... When Thomas Jefferson excoriates the 'merciless Indian Savages' in the Declaration of Independence, then, neither he nor his readers will experience any cognitive dissonance with the earlier claims about the equality of all 'men,' since savages are not 'men' in the full sense. Locked in a different temporality, incapable of self-regulation by morality and law, they are humanoid but not human. To speak of the 'equality' of the savage would then be oxymoronic, since one’s very location in these categories is an indication of one’s inequality. Even a cognizer with no antipathy or prejudice toward Native Americans will be cognitively disabled trying to establish truths about them insofar as such a category and its associated presuppositions will tend to force his conclusions in a certain direction, will constrain what he can objectively see. One will experience a strain, a cognitive tension between possible egalitarian findings and overarching category, insofar as “savage” already has embedded in is a narrative, a set of assumptions about innate inferiority, which will preclude certain possibilities." - Charles Mills, White Ignorance.
- There is a real cognitive dissonance in someone referring to a group of people as "equal to whites" while also referring to them as savages. Nah, this isn't about setting the facts straight it's about citing Thomas Jefferson sympathetic sources (most of which are not academic sources) to paint a positive light on a man who owned people as property. Our wiki policy is not to write about such topics neutrally The Monticello Association is literally run by the Thomas Jefferson foundation and consists of his white descendants. That's a not an academic unbiased source to contradict the article with. .- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Like the organization itself has butt heads with academic historians about Jefferson fathering Hemming's children, and states officially there is insufficient evidence to include Hemmings descendants as Jefferson's descendants so that they too can be included as part of the association. This contradicts what is now considered historical consensus by historians. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC).
- Christ, where do I even begin with this? First off, you cherry-picked one point I made out of about 15 and responded with a quote talking about something only tangentially related. Second, you call Monticello a biased source as if it's the only one I used, as if you claiming it is biased makes it so (I even used primary sources) and as if the article didn't already cite Monticello to begin with. I also used Monticello once to cite a piece of information that is widely agreed upon and I can find you a dozen different sources on that info. Like, Christ almighty. How can a self-professed supporter of critical thinking make a response this sloppy? I feel like I'm talking to a Conservative right now, cherry-picking, exaggerating his knowledge on the subject, and calling anything that counters his view biased. This is shameful. -- Kasunex (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's not tangentially related if it contradicts the narrative that Jefferson saw Natives and Whites as equal, a "fact" you cite specifically. The man was fucking racist lets not beat around the bush about it. Why is it important to include so much about how he had the most minimally decent stance of believing blacks were entitled to human rights while also simultaneously seeing blacks as inferior without ever describing the stance as still pretty fucking racist? But he was "excited" about being proved wrong and apparently that worth noting... why exactly? He didn't genuinely believe he was wrong evidently. I don't see how this is any more than an attempt to spin doctor his image. It's gross, it is the exact thing you stated we should avoid. It's carefully framing facts so as to white wash his image. I don't think the man deserves so much credit. He had some basic ethical stances and he utlized the wealth and power he inherited to make it a reality. That's not the triumph accomplishment you think it is. He was a deeply privileged man with liberal ideals with the power to push such ideals in society to the benefit of slaves but at very little risk to himself, his wealth, or his well being, and he was still a rapist, and he was still extremely racist, and he still owed over 600 people as property. Legality, debt, and whatever faint apologia we want to engage with are not valid excuses to keep fucking human beings as chattel. People murdered others to stop slavery, slave themselves slaughtered their masters for freedom. What fucking gross white liberalism to think staying within the legal lanes of a white nationalist state was a good excuse to fucking own people. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- There is only 3 mentions of "racist" to describe this man on this talk page, and all of them come from me. Not once did you ever describe this man as racist or use the word racism in his description of him. Don't come in here lecturing me about bias and critical thinking because you refuse to call a spade a spade.- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also fuck off with the rape apologia, no model of affirmative consent would include a master fucking his slave. Slave you described as "probably not literate". Yeah there is no inherent power imbalances in that/s. Fuck off. No one needs to cite a historian to call rape, rape. You're disgusting. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- That Jefferson claimed that Natives were "in body and mind" equal to whites is a fact. That this was an unpopular opinion up until at least the early 1900's is also a fact. None of what you are saying here is rational or reasoned. It's all you judging people who lived hundreds of years ago as if they had all the access to information, moral values, and standards of people living today. They didn't, and if you knew even the basics of historical understanding you would know this. Yes, Jefferson was racist. Every damn person who lived back then was, because with what little information they had it was difficult not to be. It's just a matter of HOW racist they were, and Jefferson was markedly less so than his contemporaries that he believed blacks and natives had human rights when most at the time were barely on board with the idea whites had human rights. Now, could I kindly discuss this article with someone who isn't a pretentious reactionary ideologue with no idea what he's talking about posing as an open-minded progressive? Or is that all this wiki has to offer? (Also, you heard it here first, people: The historical consensus is "rape apologia". I'm glad I have OnlySortaDumb here to enlighten me.) --Kasunex (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- He also called Natives savages, and he thought Blacks were inferior which is also a fact and is also racist. He also owned an exceptional amount of human beings as property. It doesn't matter that racist beliefs were popular at the time and that he was not as bad as other people at the time, he was still racist. Less racist sure, but no amount of racism should be deemed as morally acceptable; thinking otherwise is just as a matter of fact providing moral justification to racism -- which is just to put it bluntly defending racism. The whole "The moral standards of the time" is a just a thinly veiled appeal to moral relativism, it implies moral relativism as a conceit. I am not a relativist so I don't work from the idea that moral principles are only applicable to the people that I share in time period with or culture. Moral relativism isn't the de facto "rational" position. You can appeal to imagined authority in regards to rape as much as you want (which is still a form of rape apologia). Prove to me from the model of affirmative consent espoused by those who oppose rape culture that as a model it is compatible with a master having sex with their chattel slave. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- He called Natives savages, yes. He also said they were equal to whites. The former is completely normal for the time he lived in, the latter was abnormal. Same thing with the blacks. You are trying to cherry-pick. I am not suggesting we pretend Jefferson wasn't racist nor remove mentions of that fact, only that we put that racism in context and mention the ways in which he was progressive on racial issues as well. You just want to remove everything about the progressive side of his legacy because it contradicts your moral views. Moral standards of the time are important because it's flat ridiculous to expect a society of people where the majority couldn't even read and everyone and their grandma was racist to somehow find out that everything they've been fed by everyone they know from Day 1 in life is false. It's something every historian worth their salt understands. You don't, and you don't care either because you're here to moralize, not understand. And on the rape bit, you're working backwards from your conclusion. What evidence is there that the relationship was rape aside from the power imbalance? There is none, and frankly, all relationships at the time had a massive power imbalance. Marital rape wasn't a concept and women had next to no legal rights. Why not go around and say everyone who lived before the 1920's or so is a rapist? -- Kasunex (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- "Normal" and "Abnormal" for the time is not morally relevant. It just as much cherry picking to ignore these facts and cite mostly or only cite facts that paint the guy favorably. "Ridiculous" and yet we do find examples of people like this in history, a few ex-black slaves come to mind. Lets be honest though the "people" you are considering relevant in their judgements...is other fucking white people. I am sure you will also cite the rampant antisemitism in Nazi Germany as making the moral principle that anyone at the time shouldn't have been antisemites "ridiculous" as well. "Besides the power imbalance" is just a fucking gross statement is akin to saying "besides the lack of legitimate consent" what makes this sexual act rape? That latter comment also goes to show you have read next to no feminist theory in the 20th century because folks like Simone De Beauvoir was calling the vast majority of instances of women losing their virginity after marriage as being rape. That was a position a feminists argued at the time. Just because the implication makes you uncomfortable doesn't make it wrong. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- I only cite facts that paint Jefferson favorably when my argument is that this article is biased? Say it ain't so! Seriously, dude, you're being ridiculous. And of course I haven't read feminist theory. I think for myself because unlike you, I actually do support critical thinking. Critical thinking isn't "being woke". Critical thinking is looking at information with an open-mind, looking for ways to disprove what you believe rather than ways to prove it. I don't feel uncomfortable embracing new information, if I did I never would have found myself here defending Jefferson when I used to condemn him. Nothing, nothing you have done in this topic has shown critical thinking. Rather, you have shown dogmatism, seeing everything via the lens of ideology and discrediting anything that contradicts your ideology. I admit that Jefferson was racist. I admit that Jefferson MIGHT have raped Sally. I just also have the open-mind to admit that his racist beliefs were normal for the time while his his progressive views weren't, and to accept that the historical consensus and ambiguity. None of that makes me uncomfortable. It makes YOU uncomfortable. --Kasunex (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Right, because a guy having sex with a girl he legally owns and can punish however he see fits if she doesn't obey him isn't rape by any sense of the definition.  Vee (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- The historical consensus is that we don't know enough details to say one way or the other. Yeah, Jefferson could punish her, that doesn't mean he did. You can beat your dog if he disobeys you, this doesn't mean that everyone beats their dog. It's a failing of logic to assume that because he legally could means he did. --Kasunex (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ya do realize that having sex with a dog isn't considered, you know, consensual? Ye gods, you are dumb. Plutocow (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
@Kasunex If you automatically assumed that a feminist perspective is de facto irrational then you are already admitting to a type of deeply distortive cultural bias. The ideology I am working from is one of anti-racism. If what you are arguing is deeply contradictory to anti-racism...what does that imply about you? Tbh, I think your pre-conception of what "critical thinking" is deeply uninformed by cognitive science and philosophy. I wouldn't call the fallacy of relative privation, appeals to irrelevant authority, appeals to moral relativism, a lack of neuro-psychological humility and meta-cognition to think you are offering an "unbiased" perspective, a naïve view of how bias and ideology even work to begin with, and an open refusal to seriously engage with ethical considerations all as particularly exemplifying of "critical thinking". - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also there was a significance to mention Charles Mills given the whole thesis of white ignorance is that white supremacy overwhelming puts white people in positions of power to curate and provide the sources on history so as to construct a narrative that is favorable to themselves -- often to the use of downplaying the injustices they enacted on people of colour. In some instances going as far as suppressing evidence provided by people of colour of unjust events and actions committed by white people. We see this in textbooks provided in the south that try to frame the slave experience as one that was mostly comfortable and relatively decent. The characterization of Thomas Jefferson as an egalitarian is an example that Mills provides himself in his essay given Jefferson still viewed many non-white people as inferior on a racial hierarchy, and his ownership of slaves de facto established his open participation in systems of white domination; regardless of how "progressive" he was at the time - this is still true. When the dominant historical narrative overwhelming places Jefferson in a favorable light, and you partake in upholding that tradition you are not as a matter of fact -- acting neutrally. You are doing that exact thing that white supremacy has been doing for centuries, and this in turn helps and curates systematic ignorance in the American population. That's why I don't have much patience for this kind of behavior. If we are going to put "good actions" in context they have to also be acknowledged with the fact that he was still a monster. Monster who may of done more to help abolish slavery as a founding father compared to other founding fathers, but a monster none the less. A monster in a society of monsters...is still a monster.- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also you failed to understand, Vee's point he didn't have to punish her he just needed the power to do so. That is enough to create an inherent threat of violence in the dynamic. Are you also the sort of person who thinks landlords demanding sex instead of rent money from their tenets are engaging in consensual sex relations if the tenets agrees to do so? Because if so...you really are not informed enough to make comment on the topic of rape. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- And at this point, Kasunex lost his tiny little mind. Topic over, everybody move along. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
|
Stu the Foo' 02:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
LeftyGreenMario! 04:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)