Carol,
        Thank you for forwarding Carol Ely's comments to the list and
including your own, which I find deal with very important issues, particularly
those of multiple interpretations and who holds the ultimate "Truth" or at
least believes they do.  Just for the record, I was not at the Monticello
event, I received my info from a news piece.  I wish to apologize to anyone
who believes I was speaking from some authoritative knowledge.  I have read
various articles about this issue and realize it is not resolved among scholars.
           The news item made a point of interviewing DESCENDENTS, whether
contested or not, of Jefferson.  It is evident that there are African Americans
out there who believe they are related, and who WILL continue their dialogue
with Monticello.  I have no idea what will come of this issue and do not
try to say what the staff has chosen to do.  The existence of the controversy
gives us much to think about in our various academic fields and in our museum
exhibition/interpretation.  What voice should the "other" have?  I can think
of two related controversies that I hope will stimulate discussion (and that
I hope I articulate clearly enough).  Many Iroquois (native scholars and
non-scholars) believe their Confederacy served as one model (of many) for the
writing of the Constitution.  Again I can not say whether this is TRUE or not,
but the derision many anthropologists (and I'm sure others) have heaped on
these assertions have been at the least paternalistic.  These non-native
scholars believe only they are able to present an accurate and true portrayal.
This can be seen in the second eg. in which a group of native scholars wrote
a curriculum guide for NYS for use in studying the Iroquois.  When non-natives
reviewed the guide, they decided it was full of falsehoods.  It wasn't how they
had learned it (or teach it to their students).  I'm sorry this is so long, but
I hope we can get something going on this.
Ellen Schwartz
University at Albany
[log in to unmask]