new wave feminism

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

A quasi-academic look at Feminism, politics & race relations through the lens of a 20-something year old Nigerian American who was born & raised up in the (still) segregated south but has relocated to the "liberal" yet historic & traditional north.
This blog is my space for an interdisciplinary examination of race, gender, class, sexuality - all things intersectional & multi-dimensional.
Feminism the way I see it...

Tip The Blogger?

If you like what you see, and want to support the blog & keep me writing, throw in whatever change you like in the online tip cup. Or send me an ask & tip me in your kind words!
Donations aren't required, but greatly appreciated







It means you are calling Hemings a lying, gold-digging ho.

Not really though? I don’t think he did; but I think it is difficult to pin-point such details given the fact that Hemmings’ probaby didn’t have much say in the matter whether it was J or his bro.

a. this statement is germaine to separate discussion

b. there has been DNA evidence to show that TJ was the father of at least some of her children.

c. regardless of whether or not Hemings had a say in who her sexual partners were, she did claim that TJ was the father of her children, a fact that TJ never confirmed nor denied, which tells me that he did have a sexual relationship with her. so again, insisting that they were all really TJ’s brother’s children you are calling sally, and her descendants, liars.

I agree that TJ was the father of her children and I think one of the most important pieces of evidence is that her kids/etc said so. Don’t get me wrong. But people who are skeptical are not calling her a ‘lying, gold-digging ho,’ that’s a leap I don’t understand. That being said, there is reasonable doubt that is further generated by the fact that she could not consent to many sexual advances, and that claiming TJ was the father was probably better for the future of her children.

Having doubt over claims =/= calling someone a liar.

You clearly have never met a member of the Monticello Society.  Nor do you seem to understand the racial, social, political, and economic dynamics of “skeptics” doubting the word or a poor, black, slave woman over a rich, powerful white male, especially within the context of the period. Sally Hemings and her descendants have consistently been called opportunistic (there’s the gold-digger part) liars (there’s the liar part), and many felt Sally may have seduced (there’s the “ho” part) both TJ and his brother the trick TJ into giving her and her children freedom.  Being skeptical of Heming’s story is far less benign than simple having doubt over her claims.

Alright, that makes sense! And that’s really fucked up -__- I didn’t know if you were referring to something specific or not.

The way this conversation unfolded wound up being very educational. I always knew of Salley Hemmings and TJ - but I never has the story explained to me in this way - with these different perspectives. Actually I don’t even think I learned of Sally Hemmings until I came to college. (Shoutout to the texas high school systems!) Clearly, I still have a lot to learn…

But this actually makes me want to look further into the issue, and especially look up the Monticello Society.

(via praxis-makesperfect-deactivated)