Talk:Sally Hemings

Paternity of Sally Hemming's children and her alleged affair with Jefferson

As stated in the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Societies Report of the Scholars Commission, "Dr. Foster cooperated fully in our enquiry and has readily acknowledged that the DNA tests do not suggest that Thomas Jefferson was Eston's father as opposed to someone like his younger brother Randolph or one of Randolph's sons. Indeed, every knowledgeable authority we have consulted, including other scientists who conducted the tests, has denied that these tests could possibly have distinguished among the male members of the Jefferson family in determining the paternity of Eston Hemmings." The Dr. Foster in the quote being the man who administered the original DNA test which this article, and all other scholarly sources, cite as being the primary proof of Eston's paternity.

The claims that Jefferson began an affair with Hemmings in Paris are also disputed in the report, on the grounds that they originate from an interview with Hemmings second youngest son, Madison, and his 1873 interview with a "highly partisan" newspaper editor. The Scholars Report states that there are many problems with Madison's story, such as the fact that Madison could not have personally been witness to the information in the report and cites no source for his claims, as well as the fact that many unusual words in the interview match an 1802 political smear article written about Jefferson by a disreputable reporter.

There are many more claims in the Scholars Report which make a compelling case for casting the paternity of Eston Hemmings into doubt, and I will not repeat them all here. Yet, in spite of this scholarly disagreement on the topic, the opening of this article seems highly biased in favor of the belief that there is generally a scholarly consensus on the matter in favor, not just of the affair and not just of Jefferson being the father of Eston, but in fact of his being the father of many more children by Hemmings. The Report of the Scholars commission is placed at the very end of the introduction to the article, which I contend leads the uninformed reader to making a rash conclusion before they are even aware of its existence. Though I will not be so antagonistic as to make a hasty edit, I call for a review of the wording of this article and hope that moderators will eliminate any potential bias found herein, as well as subsequently reword the introduction so as to present a balanced view of the controversy which is not in danger of leading the general public into a dangerous assumption which lacks the necessary scholarly support. Procopius00 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Enslaved a derogatory term?

Can you explain this edit summary from Sally Hemings: "Restore neutral statement. "enslaved" is a highly derogatory term and is no more "correct" than referring to Hemings in human terms, as a slave and a nanny." [1]? None of that seems to check out but perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, thanks for the inquiry and for not reverting without any discussion. I'm surprised my edit hasn't been reverted already, given all the hype and focus on slavery today hundreds of years later. Okay, the idea of "enslaved" as a derogatory term is of course an idea that falls into the realm of opinion. My reasoning, however, is that I have seen the term used this way by various users before. In one instance, this new user, with what appeared to be a single purpose account, went to dozens of articles and substituted "enslaved", or "enslaver" for phrases like 'was a slave', or 'who owned slaves', or 'who used slave labor', etc. This was obviously a derogatory effort. The idea of "enslaved" as it's often used today suggests, 'kept in chains' and 'whipped', and someone wore rags and was fed slop, etc, and that was rarely the case. Again, this is my opinion, but it is not an unfounded opinion. I suppose if one was to challenge this idea it would be one opinion v the other opinion. In the case of the Sally Hemings article, it is much more objective to define her in terms of what she was as a person, i.e. " a female slave with one-quarter African ancestry and was a nanny," -- not merely some entity who was simply "enslaved". Having said that, if someone decides to revert, I'll not challenge. Thanks again for your inquiry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, today most condisider calling someone a slave to be derogatory and dehumanizing... So refering to somone as an enslaved woman rather than a female slave is preferable if someone is trying to objective to define her in terms of what she was as a person (slave is not part of who she was as a person). Some more context on the debate between the two terms[2][3][4][5]. This bit speaks to a comparable situatuon to Hemming's "For example, we use phrases like enslaved woman, rather than slave. The noun slave implies that she was, at her core, a slave. The adjective enslaved reveals that though in bondage, bondage was not her core existence. Furthermore, she was enslaved by the actions of another. Therefore, we use terms like enslaver, rather than master, to indicate one’s effort to exert power over another." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back — It's already understood that slaves were human. They are commonly referred to as such by multiple reliable sources, much more so than referring to them as being "enslaved", which again, more than suggests that they were kept in chains, work rags and were whipped to make them work. The Sally Hemings article, while including the noun slave, also defines her as a female with one-quarter African ancestry who was a nanny, which is much more humanistic than simply referring to her as being "enslaved" -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Calling someone a slave is dehumanizing. You seem to be arguing that Sally Hemings was not treated bad enough for it to count as enslaved? " kept in chains, work rags and were whipped to make them work" all applies to Hemings. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Referring to Hemings as a salve is no more dehumanizing than simply referring to her as someone who was enslaved, while ignoring (deleting) that she was a female, with a mixed racial background who served as a nanny. As for treatment, she lived in a mansion and as a nanny enjoyed a lifestyle far better than most white farmers did. She had the opportunity to stay in France when she was there with Jefferson taking care of his daughters, but still returned and continued living in a mansion with her own room. Much of the problem is that some people try to interpret the past by look looking through a 21st century lens with their modern day stereotypes. In any case, as mentioned, we seem to be at a point where we are simply having an opinionated tug-o-war. In that case, we should not assert personal opinion and simply say what the overwhelming majority of the scholars say, and have said, all along. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Most white farmers were raped by their enslavers? Gwillhickers this is a millimeter from outright racism, WTF do you think you're saying? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing Hemings, not the speculation that "most" slaves were raped. Even award winning Annette Gordon Reed acknowledges that the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings was consensual. In any case, I just cited the facts surrounding Hemings as outlined by all the reliable sources. That is not "racism". No one is trying to justify slavery because they were black. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)