Thomas Jefferson made a pass at the wife of a close friend. And admitted it. He wasn’t a saint.

“Roots” was a national phenomenon, basically established the “narrative” about slavery for the whole country, Hayley was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for it, it made Hayley an extremely wealthy man, and the Iconic Roots miniseries is still being played today.

No dissenting voices allowed to be heard or acknowledged, pointing out a number of very disturbing and damning facts found out about the “truth” of Roots since it first came out.

To whit:

According to several exposes, starting with a major 1993 cover article in the Village Voice by Philip Nobile, Roots was basically plagiarized–plot, main character and large sections of prose–according to court documents some 81 pages in all, from white author Hal Courlander’s 1967 book “The African.” Courlander sued Hayley in 1978, the judge in the case said that he didn’t want to go hard on Hayley and he apparently encouraged Courlander to settle rather than to have a full blown, long drawn out trial, so Courlander got a formula apology from Hayley and a small financial settlement–chump change compared to the millions Hayley reaped from that plagiarizing.

There is also a BBC produced 1997 expose/documentary on Hayley and Roots that, for some strange reason, neither PBS or any other U.S. TV station will show in this country.

Said an expert witness, a Professor of Literature from Columbia University, at the trial:

“The evidence of copying from The African in both the novel and the television dramatization of Roots is clear and irrefutable. The copying is significant and extensive … Roots … plainly uses The African as a model: as something to be copied at some times, and at other times to be modified, but always it seems, to be consulted … Roots takes from The African phrases, situations, ideas, aspects of style and plot. Roots finds in The African essential elements for its depiction of such things as a slave’s thoughts of escape, the psychology of an old slave, the habits of mind of the hero, and the whole sense of life on an infamous slave ship. Such things are the life of a novel; and when they appear in Roots, they are the life of someone else’s novel.” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Haley)

To quote the Wiki bio cited above, “Throughout the trial, Alex Haley maintained that he had not read The African before writing Roots. Shortly after the trial, however, a minority studies teacher at Skidmore College, Joseph Bruchac III, came forward and swore in an affidavit that he had discussed The African with Haley in 1970 or 1971 and had, in fact, given his own personal copy of The African to Haley. This event took place a good number of years prior to the publication of Roots.”

In addition, when Nobile looked through Hayley’s papers he found that Hayley’s genealogical research was faked, a total fabrication, Hayley never spent a lot of time in Africa researching Roots, and Nobile and other researchers also discovered that African officials, desperate to cash in, threatened villagers into falling in with Hayley’s claims about finding his ancestors via the oral history of village “griots,” and that Kunta Kinte and the ancestral tree, ties, and ancestors he supposedly discovered were mostly fabricated.

Also from the Wiki article cited above comes the information that respected genealogists Elizabeth Shown Mills and Gary B. Mills–experts in African-American genealogy–have also looked at Hayley’s genealogical work, and declared Hayley’s claims to be false.

Nonetheless, Roots still stands as a “true” picture of slavery here in the U.S., I suppose on the grounds that it is “fake, but accurate.”

I agree that there is no conclusive evidence that Jefferson sired all those kids with Hemmings, but I remember reading – somewhere – that the master of the house fathering kids with the house servants was common – even when cohabiting with a wife (I can’t see my wife being that understanding). When the ladies came to call it was really bad manners – in the presence of the lady of the house – that would be the living wife – to take notice of the strong resemblance between the servants and the master of the house. When she wasn’t there it was a fair topic.

Since Jefferson’s wife (and mother of their children) was deceased, and in view of his seeking out and obtaining from her father a half sister (at least – could have been closer) slave who happened to look a lot like his deceased wife, and it seems that Sally apparently often traveled with him, I tend to lean toward there being a real relationship.

But then I don’t lose sleep over it either.

Enjoy.
And yes, I’m being sarcastic. This is the “empowered” modern woman Obama voter.

http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/monticello-archaeology
[there is a skip over to http://www.daacs.org/ which is a database of slavery facts and study from archeological examination. i have not spent time there and can not comment as to what is there]

the most i remember is about mulberry row
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/mulberry-row-reassessment

with fascinating stuff from examining such mundane (for them) things as assigning quarters and moving people around
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/housing-revolution

you may not agree with their interpretations, i cant say, but if you want to know about Jefferson through knowing his household (as a profit making endeavor not just how he tidies his laundry), this is a great place to learn from.