James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, can be ordered directly from Winepress Publishers 1-877-421-READ (7323); $12.95, plus S&H. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at jkfitz42@aol.com.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
A case in point is what we have just learned about the “revelation” that Thomas Jefferson fathered a child with his slave Sally Hemmings. The claim was based on DNA tests indicating that living descendants of Hemmings carry a chromosome that could only have come from a male member of the Jefferson family. Just a year ago, it was virtually uncontested: President Thomas Jefferson was the source of the chromosome. Probably every high school student in the country was given the new information. Hollywood jumped on the bandwagon, with a movie about the affair between Jefferson and Hemmings. Remember, with Nick Nolte playing Jefferson? (No? That’s okay. No one else does either.)
And now? A group called the Jefferson Heritage Society conducted their own study of the story and concluded that it is “almost certainly untrue.” It is bunk. The group concluded that it was much more likely that Jefferson’s high-living brother Randolph was responsible. Armed with this new information, the Monticello Association, an organization that represents the modern descendants of Thomas Jefferson, voted to deny descendants of Hemmings membership in their group.
An encouraging turn of events. It is good to see someone standing up to the politically correct tub-thumpers. But let’s not get too exuberant in our expressions of satisfaction. I would be willing to bet that a survey of graduate students and soccer moms would indicate a substantial majority remains convinced that Jefferson fathered children with his slaves. You can’t unring the bell.
In one of his syndicated columns, Samuel Francis nailed the motive of those who promoted the charge against Jefferson: He argued that a story such as this “can be used to show that white slave-owners sexually exploited black slaves.” It can also be “used to show that many whites are not really as white as they like to claim,” as well as “show that Bill Clinton’s sexual frolics were not unprecedented.” (I would underscore Francis’ third point. It was no accident that the story about Hemmings and Jefferson surfaced and received great attention at the height of the scandal over Clinton’s sexual escapades. It was part of the “they all do it” defense.)
The overall goal of those who seek to degrade the memory of revered figures in American history is clear to Francis: “If you are determined to expose or discredit what you think are the racist, sexist myths and morals of the American tradition, the Jefferson-Hemmings match is a great place to start.” Indeed. I bet you have noticed: Revisionists seldom come up with a new account of American history that makes the country and our traditions look better than the older consensus.
There are many cases like this. The Spanish have long spoken of the “Black Legend,” the Anglo reading of history that pictures the Spanish as fanatical Catholic bigots roaming the world looking for heretics to stretch on the rack. The Hollywood movies of the 1940s and 1950s shared the bias. Check out Captain Horatio Hornblower with Gregory Peck and the Errol Flynn epics, The Sea Hawk and Captain Blood, the next time they pop up on the dial. They are favorites of mine, but it cannot be denied that the Spanish sea captains and colonial administrators in these films look as if they were rejects from the bar scene in Star Wars.
George Orwell warned us of the subjective nature of the historical record in 1984 and Animal Farm. One has only to recall the harrowing scenes of the mindless bureaucrats toiling away in the depths of “Big Brother’s” headquarters to create “newspeak,” the revision of history to suit the ruling party’s interests; or the meek barnyard animals chanting the self-contradictory slogans at the prodding of “Napoleon” and the other snarling pigs, representing Stalin and his party hacks and thugs.
We need not limit ourselves to fiction to see how the process works. I was always fascinated to see how my students would react with a mixture of derision and contempt at the mere mention of Richard Nixon’s name. These students could not have come up with a list of three good or bad things done by Nixon while president, but they learned that he was an object of scorn from Hollywood and the MTV and late-night comedians. Whatever good the man accomplished has been buried under the mounds of harsh criticism directed against his presidency by the opinion-molders in the popular culture. The facts are irrelevant.
The Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill confrontation is another example. The polls indicated that, by an overwhelming majority, the public believed Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings and in the days immediately afterwards. People saw the confrontation between Hill and him and made up their own minds about who was telling the truth. They thought it was Clarence Thomas. But, with the passing of only a few months, there was a flip-flop. The drumbeat of media criticism of Thomas and snide remarks by the show biz smart alecks changed public opinion. The new perception holds to this day. Current day polls indicate the public believes that Hill was telling the truth.
Even worse is the smear perpetrated on the memory of Pope Pius XII in books such as Hitler’s Pope by John Cornwell. In spite of the spirited and persuasive defense of Pius XII’s record by Catholic writers and critics, I’d be willing to bet that a solid majority of Americans now believes that Pius XII was a Nazi sympathizer. No? I’ll give you odds. Once again: you can’t unring the bell.
It makes you wonder what other historical “truths” are of doubtful origin. It also makes you wonder if the attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of Bill Clinton by his supporters in the media and the academy will carry the day, whether that version of “newspeak” will succeed. So far it hasn’t. The man’s poll numbers are low. But don’t count your chickens. The pigs in Animal Farm had to repeat the chant “Four legs good! Two legs bad!” over and over to get the other animals to buy the lie.