From referring to him as “TJ” or “Mr. Jefferson” to quoting him at any opportunity that may arise, Jefferson seems to be at the center of adulation for a significant population of our University community. This is rather unfortunate — such sycophancy ignores the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a racist and slave owner.
Recently, on one of my social media accounts, I shared an image of a painting by American artist Titus Kaphar. Titled “Behind the Myth of Benevolence,” the image peels back to reveal an unnamed silver-haired, older white man. Any University student can clearly identify the image as a painting of Thomas Jefferson. As the drape falls, another painting is revealed — a nude image of a black woman, morosely returning the gaze of the passerby.
The motivation behind the artwork should be clear and straightforward for anyone with some knowledge of Jefferson’s life. The title of the painting indicates that its intention is to reveal a certain truth and dispel a “myth of benevolence.” The painting does that by challenging the notion that Thomas Jefferson was a great, noble and “benevolent” man by reminding the audience of Jefferson’s detestable racism and slave ownership.
While I am sure not all of my fellow Cavaliers are paying homage to Jefferson as a man, from my experience and the experiences of many others, a substantial population of the University (administration and faculty included) seem to be Jeffersonian sycophants. If one searches “Thomas Jefferson” in the University email address, then one is likely to come across many references to Jefferson. The expression “What would Jefferson do?” is familiar to some students, faculty and staff. It seems to elevate Jefferson to a quasi-deistic stature. The phrase implies that if one is in trouble, then one should look to Jefferson for reassurance and security. All that being said, some Cavaliers may be appalled by classifying Jefferson as a “racist.” To them, it would seem unfair to characterize him as a bigot because he was — to an extent — a product of his culture. Though that is partly true, Jefferson remained a slave owner despite other notable individuals being vocally against slavery.
In the illustrious “A People’s History of the United States” by renowned historian Howard Zinn, Zinn reveals that one of Jefferson’s early drafts of the Declaration of Independence included a paragraph condemning slavery. His admonishment, however, seemed to be motivated by his disdain towards Britain’s attempt to “excit[e] those very people to rise in arms [against] us.” This passage was then omitted from the final version of the Declaration, and — despite acknowledging its immorality — Jefferson continued to own slaves.
Now, am I trying to say to ignore all of Jefferson’s accomplishments? Certainly not. There is nothing wrong with a person praising Jefferson for his political ideas. On the surface, Jeffersonian democracy, for example, sounds like a splendid idea. Many Americans would passionately stand in support of equality in political opportunity with a focus on the average, hard-working person. However, there is a huge difference between supporting his political ideals and venerating the man. When you venerate him, you must come to agreement with all his virtues and actions. An individual’s admiration of Jeffersonian political views simply means the person approves of or commends Jefferson’s political ideology. On the other hand, if someone openly praises Jefferson as a person, he is suggesting appreciation for everything about the man, including his personality and practices.
If you still have trouble understanding why we should not idolize Jefferson, then conceive this: If a founding father of our nation (literally and figuratively) shackles one into slavery, then would one revere this individual? Probably (and hopefully) not.
There is a huge difference between venerating an individual's ideas and venerating the individual. If you like Jefferson, then you probably like him only for his ideas and accomplishments. Therefore, I urge those who think highly of Jefferson as a man to extol his ideas (the non-discriminative ones, that is) instead of the man. Jefferson may have been a great leader, but to say that he was holistically a noble, benevolent or great man is misguided.
Alexander Adames is a Viewpoint writer.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 3 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | November 9, 2024The University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
