Reply
Mon 13 Aug, 2007 08:52 am
On another thread, discussing the death of Merv Griffin, a member noted a rather unsavory part of Merv's past. Another member countered that since the guy was dead, that it was unnecessary to bring up something negative about his life. That got me to wondering.
In our society, unless the person was an axe murderer, or something equally antisocial, people are loath to say anything negative about the person. So you have the phenomenon of people who hated someone in life, praising him to the skies after his departure from this earth.
I remember my ex-mother-in-law. She hated a nephew of hers, and used any excuse to take jabs at him. After he died suddenly of a heart attack, at a relatively young age, you would think that she was talking about another person. He went from being the biggest s.o.b. to the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I use this as an example, but I have seen the exact same scenario over and over again. Why is it that people do not like to speak ill of the dead?
To me, a person was what he was, warts and all. I have no compunctions, when discussing the deceased, about bringing up negative things, if appropriate in the context of the discussion.
How do YOU feel about this?
Re: Conferring Sainthood on the Dear Departed
Phoenix32890 wrote:To me, a person was what he was, warts and all. I have no compunctions, when discussing the deceased, about bringing up negative things, if appropriate in the context of the discussion.
I don't think most people have problems with it when it is in context and appropriate but it is often seen by many as a way to take cheap pot-shots at people who are no longer able to defend themselves.
There have been a few articles about on-line obituarty sites "santizing" guest books for the dearly departed because of the number of negative comments left by people.
When Ronald Reagan died, I held my peace a few days. But, the praise he received seemed totally out of bounds to me. So, I started a negative thread about him, one I considered a bit more truthful, rightly or wrongly. So, as my example would illustrate, I agree with phoenix.
Obviously, Phoenix felt strongly enough about my comment on the other thread to start a thread of this topic.
I look to the old adage.... " If you have nothing nice to say... say nothing? I don't see where bringing up negative things benefits anybody. It just makes the person bringing them up seem petty.
Like Edgar said, it is sometimes hard to listen to everything glorious whent here is another side. I don't have a problem with correcting positives if they are unfounded, but I do not see the benefit of using negagtives just for the sake of being negative.
Intrepid wrote:Obviously, Phoenix felt strongly enough about my comment on the other thread to start a thread of this topic.
I look to the old adage.... " If you have nothing nice to say... say nothing? I don't see where bringing up negative things benefits anybody. It just makes the person bringing them up seem petty.
Like Edgar said, it is sometimes hard to listen to everything glorious whent here is another side. I don't have a problem with correcting positives if they are unfounded, but I do not see the benefit of using negagtives just for the sake of being negative.
To be negative just for the sake of being negative -
If the complaint against the deceased is true and sufficiently important, I see no wrong in mentioning it. On the other hand, when Bob Hope died, there were people downing him as a comedian, in a way I thought fit the description :Negative just for the sake of being negative. I protested that.
edgarblythe wrote:Intrepid wrote:Obviously, Phoenix felt strongly enough about my comment on the other thread to start a thread of this topic.
I look to the old adage.... " If you have nothing nice to say... say nothing? I don't see where bringing up negative things benefits anybody. It just makes the person bringing them up seem petty.
Like Edgar said, it is sometimes hard to listen to everything glorious whent here is another side. I don't have a problem with correcting positives if they are unfounded, but I do not see the benefit of using negagtives just for the sake of being negative.
To be negative just for the sake of being negative -
If the complaint against the deceased is true and sufficiently important, I see no wrong in mentioning it. On the other hand, when Bob Hope died, there were people downing him as a comedian, in a way I thought fit the description :Negative just for the sake of being negative. I protested that.
This is one of the times where we have been in complete agreement.
Exactly. I mean, consider a relative of mine who died something like 20 years ago. Another relative of mine (I'm deliberately obscuring the names, genders, etc.) was still angry at this person, even after death. I had to tell this (still-living) person --
let it go, forget it. What good is it to dwell on any of this? Let that person's death be a lesson in letting go and leave it at that. And, if you think of this person, think of them in the context of family -- dependable, honest, maybe even brave at times.
And -- so far, so good -- 20 or whatever years and counting and I haven't heard any more negatives from the living person about the dead one. Of course, things may be said out of my earshot. But I at least don't have to experience it.
Guilt.
Sure, there is no need to tar and feather someone who is not there to defend themselves.
Those who loved him/her, there is going to be some defensiveness too.
The vulcures always come out for a death.
But I think a lot of it is pure guilt, and pure personal stroking of your own ego.
To honour someone, I think, is to tell the truth of that person. Isn't that the best? Laugh at their foibles, tear up at their sweetness and kindnesses, feel pride in their accomplishments, look at what they have changed in this world in full light.
That said; it has to be done in the spirit of love. Someone interrupting the party, is going to have short leash.
Seeing the name of Merv Griffin in that thread title merely reminded me of what I've come to learn about the man, and presented an opportunity to relate the stories I've heard of the underhanded way he made some of his millions.
It wasn't that fact that he was dead that caused me to post some of these details about the man. His death is irrelevant to the stories--and to be fair, all I have to go on is hearsay from the many people that I've dealt, and continue to deal with from around the nation and even Europe that were duped in that land sale scam, and who continually bring up his name--about how he acquired some of his wealth, and that is all that I intended to relate in my post.
Other posters rounded out the discussion about the man in that thread.
I think there are differences in the deference due to the Deceased & Family depending on whether the death is a Public Figure or a Family Member.
Public Figures attract opinionated comments from the public and retrospective pieces from the press. This lack of privacy goes with the territory. The Public and the Press are more concerned with historical perspective than with the feelings of the survivors.
The death of family members is more complicated. You might be cheering that Dirty Old Uncle Harry who groped you every since you were ten years old is dead, but his funeral is not All About You. His funeral is about comfort for the immediate family.
Over the funeral meats you can quietly compare notes with other family members about Uncle Harry's kinks and quirks, but general announcements would be an abuse of hospitality.
Watching Lewis Black on HBO last night, he was talking about having been invited to speak at the Correspondents dinner. He was saying how distressing / nerve wracking it was going to be to have Bush sitting right there beside him and how he would be within reach of an uncomfortable blow if he were to say something Bush didn't like.
Then the Pope died.
Lewis was ecstatic. The Pope should receive immediate Sainthood! How wonderful that he died for me, so that Bush would instead be attending a funeral!
Then he received a call. Cheney would be taking the place of Bush at the Correspondents dinner!
"Damn him! The Pope must have known I am a Jew!"
Maybe we find saying negative things about someone that has died to be either okay or not okay based on how it affects us personally. If I loved and admired the person it would be hard to hear. If I also disliked the person, I might wince, but not be as offended.
If I were dealing deeply with my own mortality it might bother me more than had I just received a clean bill of health. (What are they gonna say about ME?)
Overall, I think I'd tend to not say anything at all if it were someone I didn't like. Somewhere I'm sure that is tied to religious upbringing and not speaking ill of the dead because we don't know (shouldn't judge) whether God forgave or where the person went.
Intrepid wrote:I look to the old adage.... " If you have nothing nice to say... say nothing? I don't see where bringing up negative things benefits anybody. It just makes the person bringing them up seem petty.
I agree with this, unless I'm talking about my father. I say the same nasty things about him since his death that I said when he was alive. On The Other Hand... I never liked it when non-family members bashed him. I guess I claim special privileges.
What I am reacting to is the blatant hypocrisy that I have observed amongst some people. If someone could not stand a person while he was alive, why should he praise him after death? I think this goes for private as well as public figures.
That is not to say that someone should go on a bad mouthing campaign once the hated person dies. Sometimes, the less said the better. What pisses me off are those people who do a 180 at the death of a despised individual.
When Reagan died he was venerated on this other forum I visit. I ventured to disagree with many things they were saying oh, about 3 or 4 days after his death. I was slammed something fierce! I never liked him or thought he was a good president; he overstayed his best before date for a certainty. But in some circles, you can't say anything about the dear departed unless it's tarted up to be some kind of positive statement. I would never say anything negative to the departed's family and friends, but within your own circle, I see nothing wrong with being honest.
I view death differently, anyway. Funerals, to me, are all about the survivors (hate that word)... not the dead person. I go for them.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace