[Ohio-Talk] Voices of History: The Pitfall of Speaking for the Dead, by Gary Wunder

[Suzanne Turner]

Voices of History: The Pitfall of Speaking for the Dead

 

by Gary Wunder

 

Gary Wunder

In the ever-evolving discourse of social, political, and technological
paradigms, it is common to lean on the weight of history's most profound
figures

to lend gravitas and certainty to our arguments, whether these arguments are
about nationwide events or those taking place within our Federation. But do

we, standing at the juncture of a world drastically different from theirs,
have the right to speculate on how these figures would react to today's
societal

landscapes? In an effort to understand and appreciate history, are we
unintentionally silencing the very voices we seek to uplift?

 

I think about how often I hear the names of Dr. tenBroek, Dr. Jernigan, and
other leaders of prominence when discussing our Federation difficulties of

today. The presumption is always clearly stated that "I know if X were still
around, we certainly wouldn't be in this place." "We just need the values

that Y brought to our movement, but instead we water down the standards we
used to hold for one another and those things we unquestionably took as
true."

"You can bet your last dollar that Z would never have let us take this
position."

 

Of course, it is not just in the Federation that we hear this kind of
speculation about how the world would be a better place if only our strong
ancestors

were still in charge. It's tempting, especially when faced with pressing
societal issues, to wonder how the greats-such as the likes of Thomas
Jefferson,

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., and Susan B.
Anthony-would have responded. Would Jefferson, with his contradictory life
as

both a proponent of liberty and a slave owner, have altered his stance on
slavery had he lived through the civil rights movement and been a mature and

competent adult today? Would Lincoln have come out of retirement to march in
Selma? Would Washington gaze upon the strides made in women's liberation and

see it as a natural progression of freedom, or would he stand before us
assuming that some husband wasn't firm enough with his wife or some women
just

didn't know the real art of their sex? Would Anthony, having fought for the
right of women to vote, nonetheless conclude that today's feminists have
gone

too far, or would she stand in solidarity with them? Would King support
continued affirmative action initiatives and decry efforts to abolish them,
or

would he see them as a betrayal of his dream that people be judged by the
content of their character rather than the color of their skin?

 

However interesting these speculations may prove to be, they are fraught
with inherent dangers. To superimpose our modern perspectives onto
historical

figures is to rob them of their agency and context. Their reactions, much
like ours today, would have been deeply influenced by the societal and
cultural

ecosystems they inhabited. By suggesting stances these figures might take
today, we run the risk of shortchanging them. The values and beliefs they
held

were a product of their times, and it's unjust to detach them from that
context. They were not immune to change; their views were malleable, shaped
by

personal experiences, and by the evolving world around them. To anchor them
indefinitely to the views they held in their lifetime is to diminish their

capacity for growth and understanding.

 

Furthermore, there is an ethical dimension to consider. Is it fair to use
the names of the departed to bolster our arguments? By putting words into
their

mouths, I believe we overstep our bounds. It is one thing to analyze and
interpret their existing words and actions, but quite another to extrapolate
and

mold their beliefs to fit our narratives.

 

As participants in the ongoing narrative of human history, we ought to
shoulder the responsibility of formulating our own arguments and beliefs
without

using the dead as mouthpieces. Their contributions to our shared history
provide ample material for reflection and inspiration. Let their words and
deeds

speak for themselves, and let's not fall into the trap of speculating on
their behalf.

 

The legacies of historical figures should serve as signposts, not shackles.
They can guide us, inspire us, and even warn us. But it is incumbent on us

to move forward, understanding that the values of yesterday, while
influential, are not always a mirror to today's world. We must not co-opt
the history

of others to replace our obligation to think, consider new facts, and
synthesize them into something that makes sense. Let's respect the past,
understand

its context, and forge ahead with our own voices, clear and resolute.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20231112/281f62e6/attachment.html>