… It’s not really about her, but about her memory.
A woman dies in a stupid accident. 40 years later, we still know her name, which means she still gets mentioned by the press and strangers alike, and I’m sure her family hears about it.
My husband, my dad, friends, neighbors, grandparents, they’ve all died without that sort of fanfare. I don’t get their deaths shoved in my face, but I also don’t get to know that they are remembered, even if only shallowly.
You’re the survivor. Which is better? Does it make a person’s death worse if it becomes a political football or otherwise famous, or does it offer a tiny bit of consolation that at least she’s not forgotten?
I also ponder the fact that after a certain number of years, nobody will remember that I have lived . . . but at least I have not died young, the way that poor woman did. I think, to her family, no amount of “fame” can compensate for the fact that her life was cut short. Life is for the living, and hers should have been a lot longer.
Given the choice between losing a loved one in a famous tragedy and having them around for a long time, I’ll take the second one every time. I don’t know anything about the Kopechne family, but even if they considered Ted Kennedy their daughter’s killer, I doubt they drew any consolation from hearing her name used over and over for decades as a weapon by people who hated Kennedy and cared about her only because of what he’d done.
There’s little question they shared the common belief that he was.
I’m not so sure. If a prominent figure is responsible for the death of someone close to you and is then able to avoid the normal legal consequences of his actions - and can never bring himself even to apologize - I think seeing him frequently reminded of his actions would bring some measure of satisfaction.
And note that Mary Jo is and long has been regularly mentioned by more than a few with favorable views of Teddy.
I agree with Marley23, if that was my loved one, I’d rather they fell off the radar screen than have it rehashed again and again, by people who never knew or cared for my loved one.
To have her memory used as a battering ram, for 4 decades, would piss me off.
Another thing to consider is that, she was connected to this family and while I don’t know for sure, I wouldn’t be surprised to discover her, and her family, shared the same political leanings and, quite possibly, deeply respected the Kennedy family, and their model of public service.
If that’s true, wouldn’t it be all the worse to have her death used to pound down and hold back someone who’s goals you shared, politically?
It really is wierd what gets traction in the public consciousness. By the same token, every single person travelling by air in the US must remove their shoes due to the actions of one Richard Reed.
I think it’s more complicated than that. I worshipped Ted Kennedy in the summer of 1969 and didn’t give a shit about Mary Jo Kopechne. I kept, or rather developed, an open mind, and came up with a new way of seeing things. If I point out inaccuracies or misleading statements by the people who worship the Kennedys in 2009, is that my agenda? Am I allowed to say that it was more than an accident?
The agenda is that he used the power of his status and wealth to get away with a crime. It’s not a function of politics. The Kennedy’s were loved on a national level. He went on to do great things.
Instead of being the greatest politician of the 20th century he’s the politician who got away with negligent homicide. I’m glad he was able to rise above it but it doesn’t excuse what happened.
How about having such a death become the basis of a novella?
*Black Water * is a compelling piece of writing. I’m spoilering this, in case someone hasn’t read it and wants to, but each chapter ends with the words: “As the black water filled her lungs, and she died.”
:shudder: I can’t imagine Mary Jo Kopechne’s family’s reaction to this work.
Yes, it would be much better for them to realize nobody cared at all about her, least of all the Kennedys and their worshippers, and the justice denied for her death. They should’ve just moved on.
That’s just it – most of them seem to care more about using her as partisan weapon against an opponent. They don’t seem to care about “justice denied for her death.” Or her memory. They just want to use her death as something with which to bash their opponent. I’m sure her family is delighted about THAT.
You’re allowed to believe and say whatever you want to, regarding the circumstances of her death, but as I said, you are neither mourning her, or celebrating her life. It’s not about her as an individual. She’s just a talking point, now, and that’s not something that I, as a survivor would want for my loved one.
How did you read into that quote anything about politics or excuses? At this point, both of them are dead. The majority of people who bring her up aren’t trying to set things a little more right to make sure that this doesn’t happen again, as a way to get a little justice for her. Mary Jo, the person, has been lost in all this. People aren’t “keeping her memory alive” as suggested in the OP.
Suppose this isn’t about Mary Jo Kopechne. What if you’re a family member of Emmett Till? Or Medgar Evers? Or Chaney, Goodman, and Schwermer? Is it better that those deaths became famous?