Andrew's Tiki Lounge

Thomas Jefferson & Sally Hemings: More Controversy

I make no secret of my love for Thomas Jefferson. No other political thinker has had as big an influence on me as Jefferson. So many of my current political beliefs crystalized and took shape after reading Jefferson's various writings. He was a great humanist, a civil libertarian, a revolutionary, a philosopher and one of the most important enlightenment thinkers of modern history. Jefferson has also been at the center of controversy due a relationship he had -- or may not have had -- with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. The Jefferson-Hemings wars have been raging for a long time. Descendants on both sides of their family trees have been battling it out for years, arguing back and forth about whether Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children. 

Now there's a new book out that will fan the flames of the debate. Lawyer William G. Hyland Jr. has written a book called In Defense of Thomas Jefferson: The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal (Macmillan). I have not read the book. I'm not sure I will. Frankly, Jefferson's relationship with Hemings is not at the center of my own personal obsession with Thomas Jefferson. Perhaps I'll order the book from Chapters.ca or Amazon.com. But I have read interviews with Hyland and his evidence sounds very dubious. He insists that it was Randolph Jefferson, Thomas's brother, who had an affair with Hemings, not Thomas. 

Hyland insists that only a "ruffian" would've had sex with a female slave and Thomas's brother was a "ne'er-do-well." Randolph, thirteen years younger than Thomas, is the Jefferson who had an affair with Sally Hemings. His evidence? 1. Randolph had a Y chromosome identical to Thomas's, so their DNA would have matched. 2. Randolph spent a lot of time mingling with the slaves. As Hyland told one interviewer about Randolph:

He certainly didn't have the intellect or the training or education that Thomas Jefferson had. But very little is known about him. We do know he was married a couple of times. Sally Hemings didn't have any other children after he got married. He was at Monticello nine months before she got pregnant with Eston and he was known to kind of socialize with the servants and the slaves.

Hyland says that Thomas was a "refined person" and therefore spent little time with slaves, yet Randolph found it "perfectly natural" to interact with them on a regular basis. So he is a far likelier suspect to be the father of Sally Hemings' children. 

One likes to hope Hyland was able to amass more -- and better -- evidence than that. 

The book, according to Amazon.com, is 320 pages. So I won't pass judgment on the entire book based on Hyland's recent publicity interviews about it. But to hear him describe it, the evidence sounds -- at best -- extremely sketchy. When in doubt, blame the "ne'er-do-well" brother.

Maybe instead we should be asking why -- after more than two centuries -- does the alleged relationship between Jefferson and Hemings remain so controversial? In spite of the fact that Americans have elected an African-American president, the "color line" -- as W.E.B. Du Bois described the racial divide in American society -- is still very powerful. Sometimes decent and courageous people cross that line in meaningful ways. Very often, though, it continues to divide people, even after the triumph of Barack Obama. There are some people who simply can't cope with the fact that a man as great as Jefferson might have had an affair with his slave (which allegedly occurred after Jefferson's beloved wife died). This denial, so emotional, so strenuous, is yet another outgrowth of the "color line" in America. 

Don't look now, but I'm baaaaaaack... (and glad to be blogging again): Observations about some recent momentous events

I experienced some personal turmoil over the past week or so that kept me away from Blogging. I will spare you the gory details, except to say that things are fine now. And I'm eager to get back into Blogging again. Rather than comment on one subject in this entry, I thought I'd weigh in on several. There has actually been quite a bit of interesting news in the past week. It may not be the Bloggers' paradise that the 2008 presidential campaign was, but we're still living in interesting times nevertheless. Here are some odds and ends that, in my humble opinion, are worthy of commentary: 

Obama's Bill Clinton Moment: President Barack Obama has gotten a lot of flack for a motion filed last week to dismiss the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who challenged the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This odious law -- which should have been jettisoned years ago -- essentially forbids same-sex unions and all the rights that go with them: filing taxes jointly, receiving Social Security spousal benefits, the list goes on and on. When the Obama administration essentially dropped the ball on this matter and backed the wrong side, this understandably enraged many within the Gay and Lesbian community, who felt betrayed by Obama. Jennifer Pizer, marriage project director of Lambda Legal, was more restrained than most when she said: "The president made very explicit and empathic campaign promises that he opposes DOMA and would provide leadership calling on Congress to repeal it. This brief was not consistent with that promise." The Justice Department took the chickenshit way out. "Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system," said Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. (Source.) In other words, don't expect any action from the president on this front. Those of you who've followed this Blog know I've been an ardent defender of Obama in the past -- and for the most part, I remain one now. But even I can't hide my disappointment. The administration had the opportunity to take a bold step -- a step that might have been parallel to bold presidential actions on Civil Rights in the 1950s and 1960s. Sadly, this did not happen. They took the easy way out. They supported one of the most nefarious laws from the Contract With America Era. In my last Blog entry, I spoke of Obama's Lincoln Moment. His administration's sorry stance on DOMA, I'm afraid, was Obama's Bill Clinton Moment. Too many more of these and he'll find himself drifting away from the principled decency that won him the last election. 

Iran Election Protests: Iran's Tiananmen Moment?: On the Twentieth Anniversary of the bloody Tiananmen Square Massacre, Iranians are now out in the streets, protesting against electoral fraud and for democracy and greater openness. This one is a no-brainer. How can you not back the protesters? Will the Iranian government crack down with the same absolute crushing brutality of the Beijing regime? Or is this the beginning of a new chapter of Iranian history? I was struck by the size and intensity of Iranian pro-democracy protests here in Waterloo, Ontario -- which is, sadly, otherwise a relatively protest-free community. If the protests are passionate and well-attended here, they must thriving elsewhere. Both inside Iran and overseas, people are on the march. They are united together by the internet in a way that protesters at the time of Tiananmen were not. Back in the fall of 2007, I wrote a cautiously optimistic editorial in The Waterloo Region Record celebrating the nonviolent street demonstrations in Myanmar. Not long after my piece appeared, it became clear that the Myanmar protests were unraveling, due in large part to forceful and decisive government crackdowns. One can hope the protests in Iran will have greater longevity and better results than the protests in China and Myanmar. But there is simply no getting around the fact that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a very popular man inside Iran. Western media outlets portray him as villainous, but among his own people, he is often regarded as an effective leader who is not afraid to defy the West. Westerners have often misunderstood the extent to which the authoritarian regimes in these countries are actually supported by the people. Many ordinary Iranians undoubtedly feel that the governing regime is good for the country, and they don't want to see Western-style liberal openness. Moreover, the long and painful history of U.S. intervention in Iran -- from the CIA's overthrow of a democratic government there in the 1950s to Washington's propping up of the hated Shah -- has only discredited the pro-democracy protests in the eyes of many Iranians because they're supported by Washington. So while there is nothing wrong with sympathizing with the pro-democracy protests in Iran (which have now spread to other countries), it is also helpful to understand that those protests are not occurring in a vacuum. There is a complex web of history in Iran that is too often overlooked by media reports of the protests. And this history may work against -- not for -- the pro-democracy movement. 

Big Bucks for War: It should come as no surprise that Congress yesterday approved of $105 billion in "emergency funds" to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are extremely costly wars. And some of the expenditures in the $105 billion are absolutely necessary. For example, $534 million of that money will go to bonuses for the 185,000 service members whose enlistments were involuntarily expanded. Most of the money, close to $80 billion of it, will go to "defense and intelligence activities" in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Source.) Rep. Luis Gutierrez (R-Ill.), who initially opposed the funding but was lobbied by Obama on Air Force One to support it, remarked, "I thought we needed to wrap up the wars. But he said it was important for his administration not to lose momentum." Already, Obama is beginning to withdraw U.S. troops from towns and cities in Iraq. As Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki put it earlier today: "It is a great victory for Iraqis as we are going to take our first step toward ending the foreign presence in Iraq." (Source.) Violence and war are still taking a toll on Iraq. Earlier today, a suicide truck bomb killed 30 Iraqis -- men, women and children -- near Kirkuk. This type of violence has been a daily occurrence in Iraq. But at least we can begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel with the Iraq intervention. The same cannot be said of Afghanistan. That occupation -- and the war that goes with it -- threatens to last for years. The Obama administration is not talking about an end to the war in Afghanistan. And Americans there are beginning to resemble a permanent occupation force. So the news is mixed. To make matters worse, Obama's strategy of throwing money at problems is not a viable solution. These wars have taken a terrible toll, both on the countries where they're occurring and on the collective psyche of Americans. The Obama administration deserves praise for seeking an end to the conflict in Iraq. But until the war in Afghanistan begins to move toward a conclusion, these wars will continue to eat away at America like a corrosive acid. 

Obama's Lincoln Moment

President Barack Obama scored a major coup in his historic June 4 Cairo Speech. The speech was Obama's Lincoln Moment -- that is, it was a bridge-building speech, a reconciliation speech, one that came at a crucial moment in history. America needed to hear that speech. The Muslim world needed to hear that speech. The entire world needed to hear that speech.

Obama set the tone for the entire speech early when he said:

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

Eight years of George W. Bush, the War on Terror, hostilities generated by 9/11, mutual suspicion between Washington and the Muslim world, have been deleterious in the extreme.

Obama's Cairo speech will be seen by future generations as a moment when a new president reached across the globe to Muslims in an effort to seek a rapprochement. It came after years of deteriorating relations and mutual hostility.

The speech covered so many issues: Iraq, Afghanistan, U.S.-Israeli relations, the proliferation of nuclear technology in the Middle East, the treatment of Muslim Americans at home, and America's historically troubled relations with many Middle East countries.

In America, conservatives have predictably pointed to signs of what they perceive to be Obama's weakness and vacilating overseas. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Kansas) said that Obama's speech was "un-American" because it called the Iraq War a "war of choice" and it "didn’t criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program." (Source.) Mostly, Inhofe was just ornery because Obama mentioned torture at Guantanamo, which the Republican Senator insists does not happen. 

Among progressives, there has been cautious support for Obama. Even CounterPunch.org, which seldom has anything positive to say about Obama, ran a very balanced article today by Nadia Hijab, a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies. She concluded her observations on an optimistic note:

So, yes, nothing has changed on the ground yet. But because of the way it works, the Obama administration has a much better chance of bringing peace to the Middle East than its predecessors. Still, before breaking out the champagne, remember that Mr. Obama works within the boundaries of the American establishment. (Source.)

Hijab is quite correct to suggest that there were no new foreign policy announcements this time. And with an issue as volatile as the Middle East, Obama is sure to make a lot of folks angry -- both in the United States and abroad. Just in my morning Google News perusal, I've come across rage-filled quotes by an Israeli, some Palestinians, and even someone who attended the speech in Cairo.

Say what you will about the speech. In tone and content, you cannot deny that it repersents a stark break from the rhetoric of George W. Bush's administration. 

At home, the speech did very little to help or hurt Obama's ratings, as shown by latest Gallup Poll numbers. Yet this was such a monumentally important speech, even if most Americans do not realize it. It already has gone a long way toward reducing tensions between the Muslim World and the United States. It has all the passion of Ronald Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech in Berlin on June 12, 1987, with the healing humanity of Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural. A hundred years from now, people will be discussing this speech. Hell, two hundred years from now, they'll be discussing it. It was that important.

Paying Tribute to the 40th President of the United States: Ronald Reagan

"It sounds strange, but ... I see Ronnie," former First Lady Nancy Reagan told Vanity Fair magazine in a recent interview. "At night time, if I wake up, I think Ronnie's there, and I start to talk to him. It's not important what I say. But the fact is, I do think he's there. And I see him."

It doesn't sound strange at all. We see a lot of Ronald Reagan, too. He has been elevated to the status of a "great president" in recent years, thanks, in large part, to the rigorous lobbying of his conservative backers who've written numerous uncritical books that celebrate his accomplishments and presidency. 

These days, the celebration of Reagan has moved into the mainstream. Just today, Nancy Reagan was present at the unveiling of a seven-foot statue of President Reagan at the U.S. Capitol. (Nancy is pictured right at the Reagan statue ceremony).

Nancy has been a busy woman of late. Not only did she grant an interview to author Bob Colacello for Vanity Fair and appear at the dedication of the Reagan statue in the Capitol, she was also present yesterday, June 2, when President Barack Obama signed a bill to create a commission that will plan events to honor Reagan on the hundredth anniversary of his birth, which is fast approaching in 2011. 

I've Blogged about Reagan recently. I Blogged about two critics of Reagan who have written damning accounts of his presidency, Will Bunch's Tear Down This Myth and William Kleinknecht's The Man Who Sold The World. Both books were attempts to demythologize Reagan and show the darker side of his presidency, which the numerous uncritical hagiographies about Reagan overlook. 

Bunch and Kleinknecht raise some very good points about some of the deleterious outcomes of the Reagan agenda: the rich getting richer; the poor getting poorer; the middle class getting squeezed; Washington funding psychotic anticommunist dictators overseas; an arms race raging out of control; the administration engaging in covert weapons-for-hostages trades with Iran and the Nicaraguan Contras. The list goes on.

But Bunch and Kleinknecht are fighting a losing battle. In our troubled post-9/11 world, with the economy imploding, two wars miring down American forces overseas, and the Republican Party dinosaur trudging deeper and deeper into the political tar pit, many Americans are looking back on the 1980s with a warm, fuzzy sense of nostalgia. 

A lot of Americans -- by no means all, but a lot -- miss Reagan. Even people who were hurt by his policies miss Reagan. This speaks to the power of personality over policy in America. Even many men and women who were gouged by his policies back in the 1980s developed a fondness for the man. 

The sheer power of Reagan's personality has endured, even though his presidency ended more than twenty years ago. He remains a central figure in American politics, all these years after the eighties. His critics will have to reckon with this lasting power and even challenge certain aspects of it. Otherwise, an uncritical acceptance of all of Reagan's policies threatens to spread.