Speaking Ill of the Dead
It is considered rude to speak ill of the dead. It is difficult to summarize a person’s life with a headline whether they are famous or not. People go through so many phases. They go from hero to heel and back to hero. The best the media does with all this phase-shifting in personality is to call the deceased person “complicated”. [Bomani Jones](https://www.bomanijones.com/), who happens to be one of my favorite on-air personalities has a habit of keeping things 100 when a famous sports figure dies. Bomani treats the word “complicated” as if it is disingenuous. When [Jim Brown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Brown) died, he was portrayed as a complicated icon; most of it was deserved. He was a super athlete, an actor, a civil rights leader, and a peacemaker for gangs. Bo made sure it was understood what made Jim Brown “complicated” was his violence towards women.
Recently, [Bobby Knight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Knight) passed away and was classified as “complicated”. He was a brilliant basketball coach. He was also the guy who would throw chairs on the court and choke a player. Later, as analyst, he gave off some grumpy grandpa vibes. Bomani had to make sure it was understood what made Bobby Knight “complicated” was he was an asshole with a very bad temper. The point wasn’t whether Knight was “complicated” or an asshole. It is problematic when it comes to mythologizing the dead.
In my heart of hearts, I believe it is rude to speak ill of the dead. Maybe it feels like going after people who cannot defend themselves. I guess what I found somewhat shocking was how I perceived Bomani attacking Jim Brown and Bobby Knight.At the same time, I thought about historical figures. I wondered what would happen if we didn’t keep it 100 about Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, and what happened to Native Americans.
I recently read an [article](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/02/sparks-chinas-underground-historians-and-their-battle-for-the-future-ian-johnson-book-review) about the underground historians of China. These outlaws are attempting to preserve the controversial events of China’s history. The Chinese government has been ruthlessly efficient in erasing events from the national conversation that do not portray them in the best light. Currently, speaking about such events would lead to imprisonment and work camps. There are middle-aged Chinese citizens who do not know about the events that occurred in Tiananmen Square. Can you imagine, 30 years from now, people not knowing what happened on January 6th?
American history is much more “complicated “. It cannot be erased so it has to be interpreted. There are different interpretations of what happened during the Civil War and Reconstruction. There is presently a legion of false interpretations of what happened on January 6th and why it happened. What would happen if people were not allowed to speak about January 6th? Would we even remember it happened?
Maybe Bomani Jones is like those underground historians. He has to keep it real so we don’t forget what really happened. We have to keep it real in something as trivial as sports. Otherwise, it is easier to sanitize history. We start by sanitizing actors and entertainers. Next, we start sanitizing politicians. Finally, after everything is sanitized, we stop talking about what really happened.
We don’t talk about Andrew Jackson’s policies regarding Native Americans, and only the Native Americans are considered savages. The experiments at Tuskegee and the internment of Japanese-American citizens are rarely mentioned. We don’t remember Woodrow Wilson had a screening of Birth of a Nation at the White House.
What happens to us as a nation if we allow these events to slip away? Do we lose a sense of our identity? Are we doomed to repeat them? Maybe we already have.
