The phenomenon is well known, that we should only say positive things about those that have passed, and that to tell truths after the death is unacceptable. The reason for this is that the person no longer exists to defend themselves against criticism. For normal people in the world this holds merit, but for those in the public eye we must take a different approach. I believe there is an important distinction between the commoner and the power actor.
Those that have a voting legacy, we know by that legacy, it is public knowledge. Those that hold and wield power we know by the effects of their affects. It would be absurd to think while they are alive that they were a shit of a human, yet we must show an unwarranted respect when they are dead. What are we respecting, their power, their wealth, their influence? None of these things are why we should respect anyone, unless we hold the sort of boot-licking mentality of a pre-enlightenment surf that makes us believe to our core that some are born better than others and that’s why they start with, or are favoured to, more influence.
Lindsay Graham just died, the day before I was writing this. I know of him through following American political media. In my estimation he was the worst kind of person, sexually repressed (allegedly), Christian National leaning toward white supremacy, against welfare, consistently trying in rhetoric to justify pro-Israeli aggression in any form, the list of his voting preferences holds virtually no commoner-positive tokens played. This man was full of hatred and warmongering, yet I don’t think he held the courage to do the deeds himself. Some, me included, believe that moral hazard should be combatted, that those that call for war should then have to fight in it.
Ann Widdecombe was murdered, I too think this is wrong of course, people should not be murdered, but her killing does nothing to wipe the slate of her ultra-conservative legacy of hatred against migrants and the UK non-wealthy people in general. She opposed immigration strongly, she opposed welfare, she opposed measures to curb or mitigate climate change, she wanted people to have ID cards, she voted against abortion availability, voted against assisted dying, was for hereditary peerages, against transparent parliament, was pro war and pro intervention, voted against LGBTQ+ rights, voted against human rights reforms etc. I’ll give her one positive though, she was for the hunting ban… but that’s all I can give her. She was “shit wrapped in skin” (I borrowed that phrase) as far as I was concerned, and showing respect to her now she is deceased would be ridiculous and hypocritical.
My neighbour Alex, he died last week. Not a bad guy at all from what I knew of him, but awkward at times and unfortunately repetitive in conversation. We didn’t avoid him, but we didn’t welcome him that much either. My relationship with him was that of a neighbour, not a pal. Obviously the first thing we think is, because we are human, what does this mean for us? We are in limbo, not knowing what will come of his property, what kind of neighbour will we get and will they be quiet, friendly, reasonable, or an asshole. I would say of Alex that he was reasonable most of the time, and difficult some of it. I suppose that makes him a normal guy, but I didn’t know him well enough to eulogise him so I’ll say that yes, in this instance I, and the neighbourhood, should of course only focus on those aspects of our interactions with him that could be stated as positive. RIP Alex
David Amess voted with his party, the conservatives, this makes him not only, in my estimation, a weak political actor, but also a dick. If you are a modern Tory MP than I’m 95% likely to think you a dick, and if you vote always with your party regardless of the matter, then I’m 100% likely to think you are a dick. Amess was a nothing of a political actor because he represented only his party’s hierarchy and their will, if he had had any conviction he would have put his constituency before his party since that was who elected him. There is no way any constituency is perfectly aligned with central government ever, so he was imposing power from above, not representing people. For this I say his unfortunate end is of course a tragedy, someone murdered him and they should not have, but it is no reason to quell criticism of the man.
Jo Cox, murdered. Generally not a bad voting record from the perspective of a common citizen, on summary it looks quite considered issue by issue rather than wholly ideologically driven. Cox did favour mass surveillance and intrusion into personal information by government though, so some respect for sure, but not love from me by any means.
Mother Teresa was the exact opposite of what she was portrayed to be in media, she loved suffering, and she revealed no spiritual awakening in her personal diaries. She wanted to be godly so she promoted suffering for it’s own sake so that she could try to awaken some sort of holy inspiration within herself that apparently never arrived. She was a shameless self-promoter that stood in the way of healthcare and reforms so that she could present as the face of charity and travel the world sleeping on silk sheets and taking money from nefarious actors on the promise that it would redeem them (an oft tactic of the religious con-person, and the wealthy scumbag). Many have exposed her, what should be deemed as crimes against people, where she actively prevented people from accessing the available healthcare so that they could die in her death-houses of maladies that could have been cured in the hospitals they were re-routed from. She was a cult leader that persuaded poor people to die for her goal of godliness rather than to seek professional health. We should never stop criticising people like “the angel of death” as Christopher Hitchens described her.
I’ve been nasty here I suppose, but we shouldn’t mis-assess people, and view them through a softer lens, when they pass. This is especially true of the powerful. Epstein isn’t around to defend himself, does that admonish his crimes? Thatcher destroyed Britain from some people’s perspective, her impact was and still is huge, but should all that hated her and her legacy have stopped blaming her for what she did when she died? I think not, and I don’t mean we just criticise the effect of people either, they are what they do because they had the power to not do what they did, and that means they wanted to. Elon Musk has the capacity to do many good things, instead he spent a lot of his time trying to have more, and take from people who have a lot less.
A person with no power is a subject, their actions reveal their limitations not their beliefs, so we can judge them on their interactions with us, and that’s why we do not speak ill of the dead as long as they were not once powerful.
pinkfloydpsw's Blog 
Leave a comment