What's in a quote? (Archive)

Recently, famed NASA astronaut Scott Kelly found himself in a very uncomfortable position, and it wasn’t in the International Space Station. Instead, the veteran astronaut found himself contending with a different kind of fallout after Twitter was blown out of orbit over his usage of a quote from Winston Churchill.  

Here is the initial Tweet

One of the greatest leaders of modern times, Sir Winston Churchill said, “in victory, magnanimity.” I guess those days are over.

— Scott Kelly (@StationCDRKelly) October 7, 2018

...and here is the apology.

Did not mean to offend by quoting Churchill. My apologies. I will go and educate myself further on his atrocities, racist views which I do not support. My point was we need to come together as one nation. We are all Americans. That should transcend partisan politics.

— Scott Kelly (@StationCDRKelly) October 7, 2018

The former British Prime Minister’s legacy has long been defined by his defiant stance against Nazi aggression. However, his legacy in the present day has become murky at best, largely thanks to his cringe-worthy white supremacist and imperialist views. He is also seen by many as responsible for the Bengal Famine of 1943 in what was then British India, which killed millions.

Kelly used the following quote, “In victory, magnanimity,” as a commentary on the severely polarized state of American politics today. Kelly issued an apology the same day following the outcry, only to be piled upon by Churchill fans, who contended that Churchill “was never racist.”

This touches on the emotional debate over how we should view and treat the legacy of historic figures. Should historical figures be viewed through from the perspective of the positive or negative aspects of their life? Is it appropriate to quote historic figures like Churchill, or are their perspectives too incompatible with the ideals and morals of the present day?

Many may say that we shouldn’t use quotes from leaders of the past because their views were abhorrent, and their perspectives are incompatible with those of today. This claim is at best subjective and at worst hypocritical.

Why? The answer lies in these two oft-repeated quotes: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

Here we have two timeless quotes which still hold undeniable weight and meaning in the present day. You have probably seen them in a tweet or a Facebook post recently. The first was written by Thomas Jefferson, a founding father and slave owner, and the second was written by Abraham Lincoln, a president who – though he drafted the Emancipation Proclamation – stated just a year or two before that document that if “I could save it (the Union) by freeing some (slaves) and leaving others alone I would […].” President Lincoln also believed, at least earlier in his political life, that freed slaves should be resettled in Africa. These are hardly the views of a magnanimous emancipator.

And yet, we use these quotes on a regular basis, not only in the reaffirmation of the ideals they uphold but in the defense of those ideals in these turbulent political times. And so, we need to remember that people are both products of their time as well as footnotes of ours. The trick is one of finesse. We should not ignore or diminish the significance of historical figures because they do not live up to the standards of today, but we can’t make them immune to those standards either.

Though much of what leaders throughout history thought and did would be abhorrent in today’s world, the “everyone thought/acted this way” excuse does not exonerate or justify these people completely from the harsh glare of truth. At the same time, we should keep in mind that today’s truth too, will most likely be tomorrow’s abhorrence. How will the actions of many of our current leaders measure up against the test of time? Probably, in many ways, not very well.  

So, to view someone as defined only by their faults is just as dangerous as to view someone as faultless. Using a quote from a historical figure shouldn’t imply that the user wholly and unyieldingly pledges allegiance to everything that person stood for.

Scott Kelly was not embracing Churchill’s world view just because he quoted him. At the same time, acknowledging the truth about a historical figure shouldn’t be a point of contention either. Winston Churchill was a white supremacist, and Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner (and a white supremacist).

Above all, the context in which a quote is used is paramount. We should always strive to be considerate and sensitive of how others will react to what we say. Any quote can be an inert statement or a powerful provocation, depending on how, when and where it is used. As a democracy, we should strive to be provocative so that we encourage change, but still maintain sensitivity and resist malicious hatred.