The Only Comment Possible on the Tsarnaev Burial Dilemma
Creon: You alone, of all the people in Thebes,
see things that way.Antigone: They see it just that way
but defer to you and keep their tongues in leash.Creon: And aren’t you ashamed to differ so from them?
So disloyal!Antigone: Not ashamed for a moment,
not to honor my brother, my own flesh and blood.Creon: Wasn’t Eteocles a brother too—cut down, facing him?
Antigone: Brother, yes, by the same mother, the same father.
Creon: Then how can you render his enemy such honors,
such impieties in his eyes?Antigone: He will never testify to that,
Eteocles dead and buried.Creon: He will—
if you honor the traitor just as much as him.Antigone: But it was his brother, not some slave that died—
Creon: Ravaging our country!—
but Eteocles died fighting in our behalf.Antigone: No matter—Death longs for the same rites for all.
Creon: Never the same for the patriot and the traitor.
Antigone: Who, Creon, who on earth can say the ones below
don’t find this pure and uncorrupt?Creon: Never. Once an enemy, never a friend,
not even after death.Antigone: I was born to join in love, not hate—
that is my nature.Creon: Go down below and love,
if love you must—love the dead! While I’m alive,
no woman is going to lord it over me.(Sophokles, Antigone, trans. Robert Fagles)
The debate hasn’t changed much in these past 2,500 years, has it? I still sympathize with Creon’s position—the need to uphold a fragile stability in his country, the fact that the gods have gone silent and his claim for divine justice is just as valid as his niece’s—and recognize that the only—or at least the strongest—argument left those of us who would bury him is the argument from a necessary love among humans.
(Postscript/confession: Antigone is shrill, a reactionary, no feminist at all, is grief-stricken to the point of desiring death, and may well mean sexual love for her brother in the passage quoted above. I always take her side, but almost never feel good about it. Sometimes, I look for excuses to argue that Creon is right all along.)
Thank you for posting this.Report
Seconding Jason’s motion.Report
Thirding.Report
Fourthing.Report
Fifthing, though it’s encouraging to hear that the matter has been resolved equitably.Report
I believe the French have a saying about the more things change, the more they stay the same. We might dress differently and our toys might be different but many of the dilemmas faced by us were faced by our ancestors in the distant past.
Personally, I don’t see the benefit in denying Tamerlane Tsarnaev a burial somewhere. What he did was horrible but plenty of other people have done worse and received glorious funerals and burals because of the horrors that they inflicted on the world. Tamerlane Tsarnaev was a son, brother, husband, and father in addition to being a murderer. Not for his sake but for his families sake, he should be given a burial and his family should be allowed to mourn.Report
I haven’t followed the situation closely, but how exactly is he being denied burial? Is the government prohibiting it? Or individual cemeteries/burial sites?Report
My understanding is that the city of Cambridge didn’t want him buried in Cambridge, and there were problems finding any cemetery that would accept him. So, to answer your last two questions. Yes, kind of, and yes, kind of.Report
Hm.
I’m don’t think I’m at all okay with the city seeking to make such prohibitions, as understandable as the feeling behind it may be.
I’m not sure how I feel about the cemetery.
Generally speaking, do there exist “public cemeteries”?Report
He was even denied burial at the state prison.Report
They bury people at prisons?Report
Recall that to claim a body you then need to pay for the funeral and burial if no cremation is involved. Often executed folk have no relatives willing to pay for the service, so the state buries them, just like it buries a body that is unidentified found by the road side as a John or Jane Doe. This is also true of many inmates as well who have no one who wants to claim the body. After all you can have a memorial service without the body, so why not let the state who incarcerated or killed the person bury him? In addition there are programs for burying (now days moving to cremating) indigents at state expense if relatives can’t pay.Report
“I’m not sure how I feel about the cemetery.”
Why the confusion? Does it really matter who refused to bury a dead man? What strange alchemy renders one refusal acceptable and the other not?Report
I see a clear distinction between private and public institutions making such determinations.
I’m not necessarily okay with the cemetery’s decision, but I’m not sure that I’m not okay. I’m torn.
The government? To the extent that the government buries people, it should not get to choose, save for spaces/traditions reserved for specific groups (e.g., Arlington).Report
“I see a clear distinction between private and public institutions making such determinations.”
Hmmm….there is a clear distinction between private and public institutions, sure, but should we really give the nature of the institution more weight than other factors?Report
I’m not sure I understand.
Perhaps if I clarify my position, we might better understand one another…
I don’t think that the government has any business telling folks where they can and cannot be buried, outside of universally applied limitations (e.g., you can’t just bury someone in the middle of Central Park).
However, privately owned cemeteries do have a certain right to determine the criteria for their use. Jewish cemeteries, as I understand them, have very strict rules for certain things. Now, how far we should let cemeteries go… I’m not sure. Which is why I’m unsure how I feel.
But the government must treat all citizens equally. And that includes with regards to their burial rights.Report
Thanks for the clarification. My view, in short, is that it doesn’t matter whether it’s the government or some private business, refusing to bury a dead man is unhealthy, strange, and unnecessarily dickish.
I can’t think of a single reason why “public versus private” should be a factor at all.Report
Jonathan’s answer is part, but not all, of the story. At least part of the reasoning of the various towns & cemeteries that wouldn’t accept it was a fear of vandalism/protesters (who, if I may extrapolate, would probably damage other grave sites in the process of defacing Tsarnaev’s). The funeral home that was holding the body — the only one in MA, I believe, that would accept it — has been picketed by protestors arguing he should be left to rot, “fed to the sharks,” etc. It’s also received threatening phone calls and the owner — whose accent makes him sound like he’s Massachusetts born and bred — has been told to “go back to Russia.” There was a call to send the body to Russia for burial, but the family can’t afford it and no one who doesn’t want the body in the U.S. wants to arrange the transport.Report
Ugh. Thanks, JL (and Jonathan).
This can’t be unprecedented. What usually happens when someone so hated by the community dies? Where is Manson buried? Etc.Report
Charles Manson is still alive.Report
“Where is Manson buried?”
Uh… nowhere.
But a lot of prisons do have their own cemetery. There’s often no other way to deal with long-term inmate dying. For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_State_Penitentiary#CemeteriesReport
I’m a moron.
The prison refusing is an interesting twist.Report
True. I wasn’t giving the ‘whys’, there’s a lot going on here. And when seeing all the people protesting outside the funeral home, I can understand why some cemeteries would have been wary.
And this was a good post, JL.Report
Or becoming a shrine of sorts. Israel faced the same dilemma when they executed Eichmann. Their decision was to cremate him and scatter the ashes at sea. They did not want a spot in Israel to be a shrine to Neo-Nazis and other anti-Semitic types.Report
While I perfectly understand the logic, I find that a bit troubling. Not necessarily troubling enough to say that they
didn’tshouldn’t* do it, but troubling. Something seems off about not offering the deceased a place of burial because of what others might do. And I recognize Israel is not alone in this regard.*Edited to correct confusing typo.Report
Well, we know its not what others might do but what they will do. Spain has moer than a few people that revere Franco and Chile has its Pinochet fans. They treat the graves of their “heroes” as revered monuments.Report
In case your wondering, Jewish law requires that everybody be given a burial. No crime is considered so serious that it renders the perpetrator undeserving of a burial and requires their remains to rot forever. However, that doesn’t mean that people deserve equal burials. You can treat the remains of criminal differently than those of a more ethical person.Report
so, what they did to eichmann was a violation of jewish law…Report
No, it was accordance with Jewish law. Burial in this case means disposing of the body rather than letting it decompose in the open. However, you do not need to treat the body of the criminal with the same respect as the body of an ordinary person let alone a good person. By cremating and putting his ashes in the sea, the body was disposed of but not in a respectful way. This is perfectly fine.Report
No, it was accordance with Jewish law. Burial in this case means disposing of the body rather than letting it decompose in the open. However, you do not need to treat the body of the criminal with the same respect as the body of an ordinary person let alone a good person. By cremating and putting his ashes in the sea, the body was disposed of but not in a respectful way. This is perfectly fine.Report
As indeed was the treatment of Ben Laden, bury him at sea where no shrine could be established.Report
I believe the French have a saying about the more things change, the more they stay the same. We might dress differently and our toys might be different but many of the dilemmas faced by us were faced by our ancestors in the distant past.
Personally, I don’t see the benefit in denying Tamerlane Tsarnaev a burial somewhere. What he did was horrible but plenty of other people have done worse and received glorious funerals and burals because of the horrors that they inflicted on the world. Tamerlane Tsarnaev was a son, brother, husband, and father in addition to being a murderer. Not for his sake but for his families sake, he should be given a burial and his family should be allowed to mourn.Report
Is he to be buried in Muslim burial that willfully seeks several hundred other people’s salvation?Report
“Is he to be buried in Muslim burial that willfully seeks several hundred other people’s salvation?”
I’m sorry, but could you please rephrase that in a way that make sense?
Do you mean ‘should he be buried in Muslim holy ground’?Report
I’m sorry, but could you please rephrase that in a way that make sense?
You’ll have to take that up with Will S.Report
I do find myself wondering “why didn’t they just cremate him and dump the ashes someplace?” (Dump them on Polynices!)
I assume that there is some Islamic prohibition against cremation?Report
Yup, that’s why.Report
I would also assume the the family’s wishes matter somewhat, yes? I don’t think the state should cremate if family is willing to come forward and claim the body.Report
And pay for the services as well. Burial is a lot more expensive than cremation which tends to run about 2-3k while burial runs 6-10k. (the burial price can go up depending on the plot and casket chosen).Report
My rage, my fury would drive me now to hack your flesh away and eat you raw – such agonies you have caused me.Report
I read they buried him somewhere in Virginia.Report
Yes, thanks to a good Samaritan (and a christian one) who stepped in to organize it. Americans behaving badly balanced out nicely by Americans behaving well.Report