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

[Barbara Pierce]

You are right on both counts.
Thanks,
V
Barbara Pierce (she, her, hers)
President Emerita
National Federation of the Blind of Ohio
Barbara.pierce9366 at gmail.com
440-774-8077
 

The National Federation of the Blind knows that blindness is not the characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise expectations for blind people because low expectations create obstacles between blind people and their dreams. You can live the life you want; blindness is not what holds you back.

> On Nov 12, 2023, at 10:35 PM, Suzanne Turner via Ohio-Talk <ohio-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Ohio-Talk mailing list
> Ohio-Talk at nfbnet.org <mailto:Ohio-Talk at nfbnet.org>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Ohio-Talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org/barbara.pierce9366%40gmail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20231115/6ba3b82a/attachment.html>