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]