<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Voices of History: The Pitfall of Speaking for the Dead<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>by Gary Wunder<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Gary Wunder<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>to lend gravitas and certainty to our arguments, whether these arguments are about nationwide events or those taking place within our Federation. But do<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>landscapes? In an effort to understand and appreciate history, are we unintentionally silencing the very voices we seek to uplift?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“You can bet your last dollar that Z would never have let us take this position.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., and Susan B. Anthony—would have responded. Would Jefferson, with his contradictory life as<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>too far, or would she stand in solidarity with them? Would King support continued affirmative action initiatives and decry efforts to abolish them, or<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>However interesting these speculations may prove to be, they are fraught with inherent dangers. To superimpose our modern perspectives onto historical<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>ecosystems they inhabited. By suggesting stances these figures might take today, we run the risk of shortchanging them. The values and beliefs they held<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>capacity for growth and understanding.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>mold their beliefs to fit our narratives.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As participants in the ongoing narrative of human history, we ought to shoulder the responsibility of formulating our own arguments and beliefs without<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>using the dead as mouthpieces. Their contributions to our shared history provide ample material for reflection and inspiration. Let their words and deeds<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>speak for themselves, and let's not fall into the trap of speculating on their behalf.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>its context, and forge ahead with our own voices, clear and resolute.<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>