Talk:George Washington Carver/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

culturally significant addition

I added a section titled "Man of science, man of faith" to0 Mr. George Washingont Carver's biography. While i was obviously aware of his cultural significance as a scientist, I had more often than not been made aware of his great significance within the Christian community. When I came to his biography page on wikipedia I was very disappointed to very not even a mention of his religious conviction. His legacy lives on now powerfully among two very seperate circles, but equally powerful I would aruge is his legacy within both. I also find his blend of science and faith to be quite noteworthy as it becomes more controversial in light of the modern Creationism vs. Evolution debates. The two contigencies of faith and science seem to become more and more polarized daily. I find the fact of George Washington Carver's solidarity in both to be particularly noteworthy and completed relevant regardless of particular religious conviction or lack thereof. I would encourage any advice or help to make the section more wiki'd, if that is something to be found deficient. I believe his faith is a necessary piece of the puzzle when constructing an accurate representation of who he was and what he did. So strongly did he feel so as to include the topic in his own autobiography. To negate or ignore this testimony from the biography is to falsify the account of who he was. I am glad to contribute to the accurate representation of Mr. George Washington Carver and hope that others will be encouraged by the well-roundedness and dynamic personality that he was and continues to be through often competing legacies: the peanut man of science and that humble man of faith.

A few mentions of Carver's faith do occur in other parts of the article. This section should add some factual information rather than just praise and Bible verses. It seems repetitious and more like a sermon than an encyclopedia article. What were Carver's religious activities? What were Carver's views on evolution?
A few lines contradict other sections of the article and should be deleted or rewritten, e.g. "While George Washington Carver is widely recognized for his scientific contributions which revealed the utility and versatility of the peanut ..." The article makes the point that Carver's scientific achievements were greatly exaggerated, and he was not a good scientist because he did not record his experiments.
"The scientific community gladly embraces and endorses his contributions to their catalogs." As above, the article establishs that Carver's scientific reputation was largely mythical, and he published virtually nothing in scientific journals.
The claim that "His unique blend of courage and discipline have allowed him access, even now, into two circles of influence which have become increasingly more separated in more recent years" is only because the scientific importance of his work has been so greatly inflated. In 1924, he was criticized in the NY Times for being too religious to be a scientist. Thus, he did not really bridge the gap between science and religion but was on the side of religion. Given his talks with "Mr. Creator" it seems that he was anti-evolution. Did he express views on evolution?
A better theme for this section might be that Carver's legacy has more to do with his faith than his largely mythical scientific achievements. He is not a good role model for a scientist because he did not record his experiments. He is a good role model for a Christian in many ways as stated. Yet, even Carver had sins. He was evasive and dishonest when other scientists asked for details of his scientific work. That is neither Christian nor scientific. Carver never tried to correct all the exaggerations about his work in the media.
Carver never wrote an autobiography. The book by Kremer assembled a collection of Carver's writings.
The quotes at the end should be put on the Wikiquotes page. Some may be there already. Plantguy 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thank you for your insights Plantguy. they are very much appreciated. i will make the suggested changes to my contribution to this page. i merely found the absence of information regarding his "scientific" approach to be disappointing. given your points, i think i may be able to tweak my section to reflect even more accurately the role Mr. George Washington Carver had in science and in the faith community. it seems relevant, as you stated, to point out that he may in fact be more of a faith icon than a scientific one anymore. i attend iowa state university currently and you can't go into a building without being bombarded by a post of George Washington Carver. being as he is perhaps the pride of the university, his faith and beliefs are often curbed here as well, usually focusing on his scientific endeavors in order to comfortably pimp his legacy to their credibility. i think they mean well and it would be foolish not to take advantage of the opportunity to promote your university through the celebrity of one George Washington Carver, but as you brilliantly pointed out, the source of celebrity may be more of mythology than science. i will explore this more and revise my addition. thanks for your help. any more thoughts? Toddv
There are several worthwhile links in the article. The biography by McMurry is probably the best of the many dozens written. The 2006 articles by Mark Hersey and Peter Burchard focus on some of Carver's real accomplishments rather than the myths about his inventions and their impact. Mackintosh's articles debunk the invention myths. The only tribute website that comes close to being accurate is the first one by the National Parks Service on Legends of Tuskegee. It avoids claims that Carver's inventions revolutionized Southern agriculture and the focus on the great number of inventions. Even that site is often superficial and vague in many ways, e.g. it states "His plant hybridization, recycling, and use of locally available technology was ahead of his time." Luther Burbank was far ahead of Carver on hybridization. It is not clear what "locally available technology" means. Perhaps they meant that Carver built his lab from odds and ends.
Perhaps simply "Man of faith" would be a better title for your section. Plantguy 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone might want to temporarily lock this, American Dad just made an episode where the end is the main character's son editing Wikipedia to say that Carver didn't invent peanut butter. Amber 03:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I just reverted vandalism on the Peanut Butter page, and somebody created an article saying Mary Todd Lincoln did. --PAK Man 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just came here to pre-emptively semi-protect it after seeing that, figuring there'd be a ton of vandalism on the horizon, but I guess it's been semi-protected for a while already. I'll put it on my watchlist. -R. fiend 03:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Editorial inconvenience notwithstanding, you have to admit that was funny. XD - Gilgamesh 04:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Twas. At first I thought they were going to go to talk radio or something with the "if only there is someplace where we can have something accepted as fact with no evidence" bit, but when I was wikipedia I laughed, then thought "oh dear, this is going to cause disruption". -R. fiend 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision

i revised my "man of science, man of faith" section to more accurately portray and satisfy the advice of fellow wikipedia editors. i appreciate the feedback. you will find the recent revision more documented and referenced as well as focusing more on the factual content of his faith life and less on the speculative contribution of his scientific life. any suggestions? please let me know. if you feel it unsatisfactory, please give me a chance to revise to your standards before dumping the entire addition. that would very much appreciated. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddv (talk • contribs)

how do i add the quotes i found? not to here, but the quotes section? where is it and how can i link it back to this page? or vice versa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddv (talk • contribs)
I added the inappropriate tone template to the section because it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Also, statements like "George Washington Carver’s belief in God did not make him a poor scientist" and "His affinity for scientific scrutiny did not make him a bad Christian" are POV. Nufy8 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
As Nufy8 noted above, your section is very non-neutral and parts of it are completely unsourced although they make some large claims "The Christian community finds inspiration in (GWCarver)...". One of your sources is The New American which is biased and therefore unreliable and the other sources really only cover a few sentences of the entire section. I'll look it over and redact anything I feel really offends the policies of neutrality and verifiabilty and reduce the tone to something more encyclopedic. As for the quotes, you should check out WikiQuote. There is a template for adding the WikiQuote link to the article. ju66l3r 00:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
i appreciate your help in adding this section to the biographical information on George Washington Carver. i still desire to add perhaps a little more insight into his impact on the Christian community and if i can wrestle up some sources, i would like to add them. he is certainly a very relevant figure for that purpose. however, i run into the difficulty of his faith being an issue of neutrality. clear things up for me a bit. is reporting on the degree of his faith a violation of neutrality? or is mentioning the extent to which Christians draw inspiration from him offense in itself? i will do some more homework, citing, etc. and i would appreciate your input and editing skills to accompany them along the way if you would be so kind. i want to truly depict with some degree of accuracy his impact and yet remain steril enough to be objectively reporting. however, if the reported facts are areas of dispute, then i don't know where to turn. it would make an article on anyone remotely controversial impossible. so you are more familiar with that boundary, which i appreciate. i am more familiar with the extent to which a Christian is and can be influenced by the depth of devotion contained within his life and work. thanks for the advice and editing. i appreciate it dearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddv (talk • contribs)
Be sure your sources are free from bias and extremism. If they are, then they should provide good support for any claims of impact on Christians that you want to make. Furthermore, when you do make the claims, start out by more simply stating what the fact is exactly that you want to make in your claim. Do not use overly flowery or superlative prose like that which I removed. Third, make sure that you're not making any new claims that aren't substantiated by a source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source only reporting what a reliable source has already stated. Don't embellish the facts with extra prose and don't try to ascertain what sections of the Bible led Carver to his beliefs (unless a source shows how Carver's reading of a certain passage was a key influence in his life, but I have not seen that fact in any of the sources you've contributed). It is enough to say that Christianity influenced the actions and decisions of Carver and then provide well-sourced evidence of that fact. He may have had deep devotion in his faith, but this article is for letting someone know that this was the fact of the matter and not for trying to describe what deep devotion feels like. Let me add that the additional paragraph outlining how Carver has been included in Christian literature is much better and to the point than what I had edited before. Thanks. ju66l3r 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
i am happy to acquiesce. thank you for the advice and patience. i look forward to learning more and more how to craft information in a way that is both relevant and insightful. you are a valuable ally in accomplishing this ambition. Toddv 11:29 19 february 2007 (UTC)
You should be able to find some solid facts on Carver's faith in the biographies by Linda McMurry [1] and Rackham Holt. Those are usually considered the two best.Plantguy 18:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the tip. i will try to get my hands on it soon enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toddv (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
I noticed you added a link to a photo of Carver's Bible. Perhaps you could get permission from that NPS website to use the photo in the main body of the article. There is an upload file command in the toolbox to the left of the article.Plantguy 16:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
how do i go about uploading it and attaing permission in order to do so from the site of the photo? i would appreciate your input as to not accidentally upload something illegally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toddv (talk • contribs) 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

American Dad ref

The latest episode of American Dad has the main character's son editing Wikipedia to say that Carver didn't invent peanut butter. Someone might want to temporarily lock this article. Amber 03:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If Amber had bothered to check the actual article about George Washington Carver on Wikipedia itself (irony), she would see that Carver did not, in fact, invent modern commercially viable peanut butter but merely reprinted a recipe for an unpalatable and unstable product not readily embraced by the public. This was the point of the humor of the episode, not some racial bias. It was also a commentary on the popularity of wikipedia.75.131.114.59 03:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As usual, American Dad had some valid points beneath the humor. Many government websites do greatly exaggerate the number and impact of George Washington Carver's peanut products. There is actual justification for claiming a conspiracy. National Park Service (NPS) historian, and Carver scholar, Barry Mackintosh, pointed out that about 1961, the NPS suppressed an expert evaluation on Carver's scientific accomplishments because the report found Carver's work was much less than the popular myths. [2][3][4]
American Dad was also correct that the Smithsonian has a role in the conspiracy. A Smithsonian website on Carver states that Carver developed over "450 new commercial products." [5] In truth, Carver did not invent many of the products attributed to him, such as peanut butter. Also, none of the products Carver did originate was ever a commercial success. Few of Carver's original products were ever even produced because Carver only wrote down the formulas for a handful of them.
American Dad was also correct that Wikipedia is one of the very few Carver websites that point out the Carver myths. Encyclopedia Brittanica still inaccurately claims that Carver's inventions revolutionized Southern agriculture.[6] Plantguy 17:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The focus of this article should be Carver's achievements

Here's how the online Britannica starts its (1100+ word) article on the many achievements of George Washington Carver: "American agricultural chemist, agronomist, and experimenter whose development of new products derived from peanuts (groundnuts), sweet potatoes, and soybeans helped revolutionize the agricultural economy of the South. For most of his career he taught and conducted research at the Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute (now Tuskegee University) in Tuskegee, Ala."

Here's how that article ends: "Carver thus increasingly came to stand for much of white America as a kind of saintly and comfortable symbol of the intellectual achievements of black Americans. Carver was evidently uninterested in the role his image played in the racial politics of the time. His great desire in later life was simply to serve humanity; and his work, which began for the sake of the poorest of the black sharecroppers, paved the way for a better life for the entire South. His efforts brought about a significant advance in agricultural training in an era when agriculture was the largest single occupation of Americans, and he extended Tuskegee's influence throughout the South by encouraging improved farm methods, crop diversification, and soil conservation."

Nowhere does the Britannica say that Carver invented crop rotation or peanut butter. He promoted these ideas, among many others, to farmers whose lives and hopes were being crushed by the failure of a one-crop cotton economy.

  • It was not somebody's "inventing" crop rotation that helped the South, it was Carver's research into and promotion of scientific farming.
  • It was not somebody's "inventing" peanut butter that gave farmers an alternative to their dependence on cotton, it was Carver's research into and promotion of many uses of peanuts so that peanut farmers could get a good price for their crops.

I'm appalled at the spite that's been poured into this article by people whose knowledge of history seems to consist in the dates of antique peanut recipes and patents. The focus of this article should be Carver's achievements in the context of his own time. If you want to devote one tiny subsection to debunking a century's worth of pious-myths-purveyed-to-schoolchildren, that's about all the space that topic deserves. Instead you now have an article full of debunking, so that even Carver's real achievement of rescuing southern farming is now labeled a "myth." betsythedevine 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Key parts of what the Encyclopedia Brittanica says about Carver are simply false or deliberately misleading. His products did not "revolutionize the agricultural economy of the South" because none was ever a commercial success. Carver did not write down formulas for most of the products, so people could not manufacture them.
You need to go beyond Encyclopedia Brittanica and read the authoritative sources listed at the end of the article such as McMurry, Hersey and Burchard.
You are totally wrong that "Carver's real achievement" was "rescuing southern farming." It was not a real achievement, just a myth. Read Hersey especially. He describes how the many black tenant farmers could often not use crop rotation because the landowners required them to grow cotton to maximize income. Plantguy 07:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not say, and the EB does not say, that Carver's "products" revolutionized southern agriculture. It was in his role as an educator and in later life a figurehead that enabled him to publicize the ways agricultural practice needed change.
I take it, however, that you don't contest the point of this comment--that the article should focus on what Carver did rather than on what he didn't do. betsythedevine 11:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The EB quote you provided does very clearly say that Carver's plant products helped revolutionize Southern agriculture. i.e.
Carver's "new products derived from peanuts (groundnuts), sweet potatoes, and soybeans helped revolutionize the agricultural economy of the South."
That is vague and very misleading. Name one plant product Carver actually originated that was a commercial success during his lifetime or after. As an example of how vague and misleading that statement is, you could truthfully say that anyone who lived during Carver's lifetime and ate peanuts "helped revolutionize the agricultural economy of the South."
Absolutely, it is important to provide the facts of what Carver did, including the problems he had at Tuskegee with Booker T. Washington, the fact that his list of peanut products was greatly inflated and included many products he did not originate, the fact that he started four companies to try to commercialize his peanut products, the fact that he did not write down the formulas for most of his plant products so no one could make them or evaluate them, etc. A factual article has to include the bitter with the sweet. The EB article is more like a eulogy than a factual article.
It is especially important for an encyclopedia to correct widespread misconceptions, like false claims that Carver invented peanut butter and crop rotation and EB's misleading claim that Carver's "new products derived from peanuts (groundnuts), sweet potatoes, and soybeans helped revolutionize the agricultural economy of the South." Plantguy 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The full EB quote refers to Carver's development of those products, not his invention of them. The full body of the EB article makes it clear that his "development" efforts included not just research and teaching but also promotion.
Carver's success in persuading farmers to change their habits was what changed southern agriculture--not the financial success of any peanut product.
I have no objection to the body of this article including "the bitter with the sweet." My objection is to the snarky tone that now pervades it--and to your re-editing this bio's summary so that more than half its text now refers to your obsession with debunking Carver "mythology." In fact, I first heard about this article on Craigslist, where somebody calling him/herself "indep" points to it in support of his views that Carver was no big deal. In other Craigslist posts, "indep" pushes a similar POV about other widely admired historical figures who were black.
You state above that the Encyclopedia Britannica is slanted and misleading--and that some 30-year-old writings by a US Parks official represent "the authority" on Carver in 2007.These are pretty extraordinary claims--please give some citations that back you up on this. betsythedevine 17
36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Just because Mackintosh's articles were from 1976 and 1977 does not invalidate them. Show me a more recent article or book that disproves Mackintosh's central thesis that it is a myth that Carver or his peanut product inventions played a major role in revolutionizing Southern agriculture.
I already did give several citations the full content of which are available online. They are cited at the end of the Wikipedia article. Hersey, Burchard and McMurry are all professional historians. The recent scholarly literature tries to recast Carver's importance as more of an environmental seer, ahead of his time.
Hersey (2006) is from a refereed professional history journal. Hersey states "The mythical Carver was "the Peanut Man," a cultural icon that emphasized and inflated his scientific discoveries and obscured the legitimate reasons for historians to consider him."
Burchard (2006) from the Carver National Monument states "Linda McMurry, in her 1981 book, on Carver, ... takes as her thesis that he was exploited as a symbol by self-interested groups, and that his fame was based on myth."
McMurry (1981) is the most recent authoritative Carver biography. In her preface, McMurry states "For a variety of reasons both the value of his discoveries and the significance of his role in revolutionizing the Southern economy were considerably inflated."
Professor C. Wayne Smith is an agronomy professor at Texas A&M University. His 1995 book Crop Production : Evolution, History, and Technology has a chapter on peanuts. It does not mention Carver at all as a factor in the increase in U.S. peanut production in the early 1900s.
Where are your recent authoritative Carver references, not a tertiary source like the Encyclopedia Brittanica? It seems like you are basing your arguments only on EB. Wikipedia is not supposed to copy the errors in EB. It is supposed to come from primary and secondary sources and be more in-depth. Just look at some of the 5-star rated Wikipedia biography articles. They are very detailed.Plantguy 20:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)



Request for consensus on this article

IMO, this biography has been too-aggressively edited to emphasize debunking myths about Carver. I see that people have already complained about the negative tone of the end product.

The existence of myths about a historical figure doesn't need to have this effect on an article. There is no mention of the cherry tree in the bio summary for George Washington -- there is a detailed section in the article discussing and debunking some myths about him. The bio for Thomas Edison has a section for criticisms--and another for tributes. Edison's bio summary describes his life and achievements--it also includes one debunking POV sentence, "Some of the inventions attributed to him were not completely original but amounted to improvements of earlier inventions or were actually created by numerous employees working under his direction. "

In my opinion, the Carver biography summary should contain one sentence referring readers to a later section on myths about Carver. The rest of the summary should be devoted to his notable life and achievements. Do others agree that this would improve the article?

Furthermore, those eager to debunk myths about Carver should present evidence in the form of citations showing at least one recent source saying something false about Carver. Furthermore, instead of (for example) dismissing Carver's unwordliness as a myth, on the basis that he filed some patents and started some companies, they should also describe some of the many generous activities on his part that could have given rise to such a myth.

Do others agree that this would improve the balance and NPOV of the article? betsythedevine 17:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC) (reworded, betsythedevine 02:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

I would agree to have the top section of the main bio (Sections 1-6) just have a link to the debunking myths section but only if the bio does not present any of the myths as if they were facts. In the top section, it would be appropriate to say that Carver is widely known as the Peanut man for promoting the U.S. peanut industry but it is false to say he invented over 300 uses for the peanut or that his peanut products revolutionized southern agriculture. Sections 7-9 would remain as is.
Your example of George Washington and the cherry tree is not a close analogy. George Washington's fame was based on actual accomplishments, not on the cherry tree myth. Carver's fame is based mainly on the Peanut Man myths. There are many legitimate reasons for admiring Carver, which I added to the intro and listed in the Behind the Peanut Man myth section.
Your request to balance the myth that Carver never sought financial gain for his inventions but generously gave them to all mankind is already there in the Behind the Peanut Man myth section. You are welcome to add to the list.
I have no problem in including recent examples of sources that present Carver myths as if they were facts. There are so many of them, including the EB. Plantguy 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Barry Mackintosh and the anti-Carver snark factor in this article

Barry Mackintosh is a former US National Park official [7], the author of two substantially identical articles debunking the "myth" of George Washington Carver--the first one published in 1976 [8] and the second one in 1977 [9].

Mackintosh's admiration for Booker T Washington seems to play a major role ih his apparent hostility to Carver, and much of his work is devoted to describing clashes between Washington and Carver. Another online document by Mackintosh describes his annoyance at the suppression, in 1962, of a Park Service report suggesting that many of Carver's reputed scientific "discoveries" had been exaggerated by his admirers. [10]

Now, if Carver's debunkers want to cite, as they do, all three articles by Mackintosh, it seems only reasonable to make clear as well that they are not citing three independent historical articles but three articles by one Barry Mackintosh, someone whose bona fides as a historian we don't know.

Mackintosh's anti-Carver bias would earn criticism if he were editing Wikipedia. For example:

In a materialistic era Carver's disregard for financial gain was among the remarkable qualities exciting the public imagination. He sought or arranged for commercial exploitation of his products on at least four occasions, acquired three patents and a possible interest in others, and granted over $60,000 to the George Washington Carver Foundation at the end of his life despite reported losses in bank failures.[71] But since his patents and business ventures were not highly remunerative, since he lived almost penuriously, and since his estate—while comfortable—did not befit a scientific genius responsible for hundreds of commercially valuable discoveries, his commercial activity was generally ignored or denied outright.

Three patents out of a lifetime of research are treated clear evidence that Carver's "disregard for financial gain" is mythical. betsythedevine 23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Barry Mackintosh is absolutely an authoritative source on Carver. His findings are echoed by other Carver experts including Linda McMurry, Peter D. Burchard and Mark Hersey. Mackintosh was a professional historian with the National Parks Service from 1965 to 1999. [11] His 1976 Carver article had 91 footnotes including many to original sources and other Carver biographies.
The 1976 Mackintosh article was in a refereed journal for professional historians so has all the sources. The 1977 version was a shorter, less technical version for a general audience.
The 1962 report on "Scientific Contributions of Carver" that the NPS suppressed was a study they commissioned with two University of Missouri professors in the Department of Agricultural Chemistry, William R. Carroll and Merle E. Muhrer. What the NPS said about the report was,
"While Professors Carroll and Muhrer are very careful to emphasize Carver's excellent qualities, their realistic appraisal of his 'scientific contributions,' which loom so large in the Carver legend, is information which must be handled very carefully as far as outsiders are concerned.... Our present thinking is that the report should not be published, at least in its present form, simply to avoid any possible misunderstandings."[12]
Notice even the NPS used the term "Carver legend."
You misinterpreted Mackintosh as basing the myth that Carver never sought to profit from his inventions just on Carver's three patents. Carver started four separate companies to make and sell some of his products.
This article attempts to stick with the facts, and not the myths and legends. It is not snark or anti-Carver bias, simply the facts. Plantguy 08:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The focus of Barry Mackintosh's scholarship, starting with his 1974 Master's Thesis at the U of Maryland on "The Carver Myth" (cited here [13]), seems to be debunking and diminishing the achievements of George Washington Carver. Debunking someone's achievements is a good franchise. If I write an article praising Einstein's work, I'll have a hard time getting it published or read. If I write an article slamming Einstein and claiming his wife discovered relativity--suddenly people will want to read what I wrote.
Is it research or POV that causes Barry Mackintosh to accuse [14] Carver of "a penchant for self-promotion," "conscious deception," "misleading representations of the nature of his scientific work and output"? Perhaps some study of history outside the National Parks might have introduced Mackintosh to the public pronouncements of other scientists who are welcomed into the public spotlight. Very few of those pronouncements, especially after being translated into a reporter's exciting news story, read like the whispers of a blushing violet or could withstand word-by-word dissection by someone looking for errors.
Carver can't do anything right for Mr. Mackintosh. Mackintosh asserts (on what evidence?) that Carver's fame was created by whites who liked humble black people. Then Mackintosh, also white, slams Carver for not being humble enough.
Is it research or POV that causes Barry Mackintosh to write "Carver contributed even more to the myth indirectly ... Rather than contradicting untruths, he let them pass or issued modest protestations unlikely to be received as sincere criticism. His customary response to spoken claims was similar. "I always look forward to introductions about me as good opportunities to learn a lot about myself that I never knew before," he would begin on the platform, dissociating himself from inaccuracies without actually seeming to do so under a cover of humor and apparent modesty."
Thus even Carver's attempts to correct myth-makers are dismissed the mind-reading Mr. Mackintosh as yet more evidence of Carver's guilt.
I am not trying to promote a Carver "legend." I just think that the many, many anti-Carver statements by Mr. Mackintosh suggest that his work should be taken with a giant grain of salt. Furthermore, I think it's important to make it clear that three of the online sources you keep citing are in fact the work of the same individual. But you and I shouldn't disagree about that--if you think Mackintosh is a famous Carver scholar, you should be proud to keep mentioning his name.
Some of Mackintosh's claims are backed up by research--for example, Carver's clashes with Booker T Washington. Some of his many, many different claims that Carver deserves little credit for this..for that..for the other thing..seem to derive more from POV than from the facts. For example, Mackintosh lists all the "humble" and "apolitical" qualities that could have made white racists prefer Carver to a (hypothetical) uppity black agronomist. But these details, and our modern revulsion against such historical racist attitudes, don't add up to evidence that Carver's fame was manufactured by whites. betsythedevine 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Mackintosh was after the facts based on his reading of the primary and secondary literature on Carver. McMurry is considered the most accurate and authoritative biography on Carver, and she echoes much of what Mackintosh states as do other recent Carver scholars. Your rant against Mackintosh has little credibility because you provide no authoritative sources that contradict Mackintosh. Some of your complaints about Mackintosh seem irrelevant because those parts are not in the Wikipedia article, e.g. in your words "white racists prefer Carver to a (hypothetical) uppity black agronomist."
You are correct that authors that debunk the status quo often get the most attention. If Mackintosh was wrong on the facts, why haven't any other historians attacked Mackintosh's work in over 30 years?
Carver was promoted by both whites and blacks but in his day, the whites had almost all the power. The NAACP gave Carver their highest award in 1923, the first major award Carver received in the U.S. Carver was promoted by many groups including the peanut industry, Iowa State, and the federal government. Burchard (2006) details how one justification for making Carver's birthplace a national monument during wartime was that it would make all black Americans fell more like a part of the U.S. war effort, not for Carver's scientific discoveries.
Much of the Carver Wikipedia article is not based on Mackintosh. There are many other sources. The Booker T. Washington section is based on the multi-volume Papers of Booker T. Washington [15], which got deleted from the reference list because of all the hasty deleting of text. Plantguy 21:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You say "Mackintosh was after the facts"--I'm sure he was. It's also clear from those detailed quotes of his work that he wrote up his facts with a strong anti-Carver slant. In fact, it's the snarky tone of the Mackintosh stuff, loudly reflected in much of this article, that I object to--not the facts he describes.
You cite McMurry as evidence for Mackintosh. Are you aware of what she says about him? Amazon lets you search her book for the word "Mackintosh" [16]. Far from treating him as an authoritative source, she mentions his work only on pp 307-308 (according to both the index and Amazon's search), mentioning him there primarily to debunk his POV. "A final question is whether Carver deserves continued recognition after the myth is destroyed. For some, such as Mackintosh, the answer is no. Yet this is plausible only if the real Carver was nothing more than the mythology, an assertion that ignores the significance of his true vision or philosophy, and his impact on individuals. " To that, I say amen. betsythedevine 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


What you interpret as an anti-Carver slant, I consider facts. I read Mackintosh for the facts, not his opinions. I make my own opinions based on the facts he presented such as Carver's actions and statements. For example Carver created the myth that he magnanimously gave his products to all mankind with statements such as "One reason I never patent my products is that if I did it would take so much time, I would get nothing else done. But mainly I don't want my discoveries to benefit specific favored persons."
Mackintosh's facts have been drowned out by the pro-Carver slant of the vast majority of popular articles, websites and children's books that present one or more Carver myths as fact. If you average them together, there still is a very big pro-Carver slant overall. If Wikipedia is to have any integrity, it should be more accurate than the many Carver tribute websites.
I didn't say that McMurry agreed with everything about Mackintosh, only that "she echoes much of what Mackintosh states" about Carver's fame being based mainly on the Peanut man myths. I have no problem if you want to put more emphasis on Carver's philosophy as long as you do not present the Peanut Man myths as facts. Plantguy 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to present any myths as facts.

What I interpret as an anti-Carver slant is Mackintosh's choice of wording and interpretation. You consider them facts. OK, we disagree. If you want to discuss the "never patented inventions" issue, let's take that to a different section. This one is about Mackintosh's credentials and point of view. betsythedevine 23:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)