In Pennsylvania, Dad's Remains Belong to Tourists, Not His Family

Can a small town government – or really, any government – claim the remains of an individual as their property? Does a child have the right to have their parent buried in a family cemetery near their loved one's home? Is it right for a government or private institution to maintain control over human remains for the sake of tourism, or for the interest of self-validation? If a government buys a body from a poor widow and buries the remains in a nice tomb, should they maintain perpetual ownership?

These are all questions raised by recent litigation involving the legal claim over a person's remains. Fifty-seven years ago, a small municipality nestled in the Pocono Mountains of northeastern Pennsylvania, paid the moneyless widow of an exceptional athlete for the right to both bury her husband in their village and rename their town after him. Formerly known as Mauch Chunk and East Mauch Chunk, the borough of Jim Thorpe has managed to transform their economy from a mainly (failing) industrial one to one based on tourism, though not necessarily due to the change in name.

Jim Thorpe, the person, is still recognized as one of the greatest athlete's the world has ever seen. Despite the constant racial discrimination (Thorpe was part Native American), Thorpe competed in numerous sporting events as a veritable sports-renaissance man. Besides playing pro-football, Thorpe also made great achievements in pro-baseball, pro-basketball, and even brought home Olympic gold medals in the pentathlon and decathlon. Despite his achievements and fame, however, he experienced financial destitution in his later years.

Recently, one of Thorpe's children, 73 year-old Jack Thorpe, requested that his father's remains be returned so that he may be buried in a family cemetery located in Potawatami County, Oklahoma. After refusal (by consensus of the town council), Jack Thorpe chose to sue the borough for having violated two-aspects of a 1990 federal statute, requiring that remains and artifacts of Native Americans be appropriately inventoried and repatriated if requested by an authorized family/tribal representative. Raised as a member of the Sac and Fox Tribe, Jim Thorpe's lineage is also that of Potawatami, French, and Irish.

Though there is a clear legal issue here, that of the borough's failure (and outright refusal) to satisfy federal law, there is indeed a more universal problem associated with these circumstances: can or should a government/organization own a person's remains? Is this a simple business transaction, whereby any family or tribal interests are negated by the exchange of money years past? Is it right to use human remains as a mascot or a means for attracting tourists?

Arguably, naming a scenic village after a person and resurrecting a small tomb and monument for them is quite an honor, but is that a valid reason to hold on to the body? However, since you cannot even see the body, and the name change has not drawn the attention the planners had wished, perhaps the village would do just fine without it. After all, you can visit hundreds of towns and countless regions only to discover that their namesake, including the Penn in Pennsylvania, is not even buried there.

Nevertheless, the profit function -- however successful -- of a person's remains should not determine the validity for the use of body-for-tourism. Hopefully the courts will side with Thorpe's son, though we should also hope that dissenting "Thorpians" and borough council members stop thinking about this as property or financial loss, and instead see it as a further gesture in honor of the great American athlete Jim Thorpe.

Photo credit: dougtone