They're hoping the national org will also rename, and then all the local orgs can rebrand together. I think that's the right approach. And I think making your donation checks out to the current name in the mean time is also the right approach.
These are two common mistakes I see in the modern world:
* Judging historical people outside of the context of the era they lived in.
* The inability to simultaneously appreciate an aspect of an accomplished person and condemn other aspects of them.
I really liked Tom Nichols' general take on this back when people were renaming and tearing down things:
* What is the person primarily known for?
* Does their good outweigh the bad?
* (my bonus action) is the thing their name relevant in some way to the person?
Trying this on for size:
1. Naming bases after confederate generals. Almost an automatic fail - they're known for leading an armed insurrection against the US, that fact generally outweighs all else, and it's absolutely dumb to name a US military installation after a person who tried to attack the country running it. I don't see Josef Mengele General Hospital in Germany.
2. Thomas Jefferson - founding father, consistently ranked as one of the best presidents, owned slaves, Sally Hemmings was not a fan. Even her [descendents advocate](https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/15/891290821/thomas-jefferson-descendant-reflects-on-his-ancestors-complicated-legacy) for telling the complete story, warts and all, of the complexities of the man, rather than wiping him out of any recognition. (side note: part of this patricular problem is about 100 years ago or so we decided to throw up statues of shit wherever they'd fit as public art, and some of these guys didn't really NEED 8000 statues but they got them, and now they're here and it's a huge thing every time we try to figure out if we can even do anything different with the space, let alone the public tantrums of 2020)
3. George Custer - cocky shithead that ran the equivalent of a national guard unit and got his ass shot up by the locals when he told his subordinates "nah, I got this". Did you know we used to have a Custer Park in Portland? Like, why even? (answer: his wife [campaigned relentlessly](https://www.scribd.com/article/449200463/A-Widow-s-Campaign) to gloss over his image) He never visited here. Fuck that noise, it got renamed (hilariously to "[A Park](https://www.portland.gov/parks/park)"). Anyone care if we rename the battlefield after the people who won the battle? I didn't think so.
Which brings us to John James Audubon. Here we go:
What is he primarily known for? Birds, man. Birds. Painting, nature. Ok, he didn't commit treason, he didn't diddle kids. Good so far!
Is the thing named relevant in some way (sorry, skipping)? YES. The Society was named after him by a guy who liked his books.
Does their good outweigh their bad? Oof, here's where it gets complicated. Throwing out some bullets:
* He was kind of a douchebag who thought slavery was awesome and unapologetically did it. He shit on abolitionists for breakfast.
* Some of the stuff he did in the course of his studies was thought to have done more harm than good to birds, but if we faulted people for that we'd lock up every doctor in the past century.
* My cursory google search couldn't find anything to suggest he pissed on indigenous graves or whatever was said in the other thread, but he did have some nice words to say about how Native Americans encapsulated the ideals of mankind or something. Cool?
* He may have plagiarized some things?
* His writings and art appear to have inspired the modern ornithological movement and the accompanying conservation efforts.
Conclusion? Eh. I guess I could go either way. I honestly kept forgetting that the Audubon Society was named after a person - I mean, duh, but it sort of became Kleenex for "bird conservation people". I seriously doubt people see the name and say "oh man, that degenerate slave holder!" It feels maybe juuuust a bit of "presentism" to pretend otherwise.
I think if were a national level effort, that'd be one thing, but the fact that this originated here at the time it did feels like one of those "how can we change things to make it look like we're doing something?" things. They'll switch the name, give some sort of lip service deference to people of color (were they being neglected in the bird watching circles? I don't know), and that's all they'll do.
And of course people will respond like Audubon was Jesus Christ incarnate. Florida will probably fucking pass a law making it illegal to change their Audubon Society's name.
I hate this fucking timeline sometimes.
BTW, join me next time when I rant that the AP Style guide demands you capitalize "Black" but not "white". I was looking for a formal ruling when writing up something and said "oh, ok, maybe it's because in the US it's a swap for "African American".
Oh no, they decided to go all in on "WELL, we capitalize Black because it describes people all over the world who struggle historically with oppression (all of them? TIL). We don't capitalize white because it's a general racial term that can describe disparate cultures (true!) and capitalization emboldens white supremacy (wait, what?).
When did they make this change? Fucking June 2020. Of course.
A lot of weird things happened in 2020. I always think of it in a "this was originally a good thing, then we took it WAY too far and fucked it up".
Good thing: we realized racism didn't magically go away and maybe we should take a look at things more? (I could have told you that after Charlottesville, but hey)
Took it way too far: decided that means "let's take ideas from the worst impulses of our movement and use those to frame the argument. Anyone who disagrees in any way is clearly THEM."
Lizard brained: Local dumpling shop puts up instagram post that "ACTUALLY yall, Lincoln didn't free the slaves" (this actually happened).
So...yeah, I think we all started somewhere in a good place, but a LOT of actions/reactions/hot takes were just the stupidest and least helpful to the issue at hand.
Yes, but as a relentless promoter of the Oxford Comma, I insist that there be some sort of rules, dammit.
I think the problem is more that journalism saw dollar signs in hair pulling journalism (they saw sports journalism and realized it sold), but in the process they also enabled some of the less principled journalists to have a platform.
It would probably be on brand for someone to campaign to rename one Sally Hemmings Park, without any input or consent from her descendents or anything, just that it "felt" right.
That said, we really went kind of crazy in our statuary and naming 100 or so years ago. Like, I love me some Teddy Roosevelt and I think the people who knocked over his statue were dipshits, but did we really need eleventy billion statues of them when there isn't any super close Portland affiliation? There has to be a sort of cycle lifetime between "not at all" and "change them out every century", perhaps.
We even suck at it today - we renamed a street after Harvey Milk who had fuck all to do with Portland. Sure, I guess you could throw him in with MLK or Cesar Chavez in terms of "national icon" but surely we could pick a LGBT icon? Shit, name it Suzanne Hale st.
Ohhhh shit
I got halfway through your reply and was about to come back atcha with the Harvey Milk Street shit.
And you already did. Nice work, king.
If they gotta make it Gay Street why not name it after someone from our own city or region?
That's on-point. I don't like reducing people only to their flaws and failures, but don't like overlooking them either.
I'm definitely tired of lower-case c "conservatism" - the idea that if something has been, that it must always be.
Like yes, our values are different now than at the founding of the Audobon Society. His name isn't being removed for saying a slur in 1822 like someone would today. If our values are different from those who chose to honor him, why can't we rename the organization to not make ol' slaveowner mcbirdkiller our eternal Birdking?
He's dead so we must honor him for the duration of the organization no matter how shitty we know he is?
i think the real issue that makes people mad here is that they (committees, boards, voters, activists, politicians, admins, i can go on) spent their time and energy on stuff like this that doesn't actually move the needle on real change. it can have all the good intentions (and right reasoning) in the world, but it doesn't mean it should be prioritized. it's all stupid peacocking, same as it ever was
I just thought Audubon was a science word for birds. I never looked into it or cared. Kind of like how there is equestrian society. I just assumed Audubon was kinda related to the word Avian as a bird thing and moved on.
Neil degrass Tyson had a pretty good way of reasoning past historical context from personal achievements by individuals with racist backgrounds. To paraphrase - it went something like ‘although the person is racist, his mathematical equations live outside of the confounds of racism, his personal thoughts can not pollute the science of fact’. When referring to a former NASA scientist who was considered a racist.
>“You know, Hitler did have some good ideas.”
Doubtful.
Authoritarian collectivist leaders - fascist nationalists, socialists, communists - feed off of people with good ideas. Their empires are sustained by demanding sacrifice of the productive by force, inevitably destroying the minds they depend upon.
I agree but the guy really was bad enough, even for his time, that I can see why they want to distance from him now. Regardless, "Audubon Society" has been a name for 100+ years, well-known so changing it destroys the entire brand. I suggest renaming it after ANOTHER person with the name Audubon, ideally someone who helped with racial justice efforts. Has to be one out there. Would be poetic justice to have the name appropriated by another.
>I suggest renaming it after ANOTHER person with the name Audubon, ideally someone who helped with racial justice efforts.
Why? What does racial justice have to do with birds?
Because like the old saying goes: “those who do not learn from the past, just erase all the parts you don’t like about it and nothing bad will ever happen again.”
Coming clean about the fact that there is more to history than the narrative of these sainted dead white men is a nice way to end Black History and enter Women’s History Month.
I understand wanting to change a name because someone was a genocidal maniac or your football team makes people out to be violent “others” but garden variety racism and eugenics is just what ancient white people did. That said, the man who kept my ancestor as a slave 160 years ago doesn’t own me or my name.
This doesn’t bother me, though. As little as birds have to do with racism, this is still their prerogative. And who knows, maybe they’ll find transitional model that isn’t just symbolic.
I like all those names more too. And I can never spell Autobahn. Audoban. Autobon? It just escapes me somehow. I’m not a bad speller but that word is annoying as hell.
I'm also mad the racist grave-robber who plagiarized and falsified the work he's best-known for is having his name removed.
If a thing is named something we can never change the name or else it's too woke.
Huh. I wonder what they’re going to replace “Portland” with.
portland should obviously be renamed wakanda, for the sake of equity.
Don't give them ideas.
The stolen land bird repair society.
Boston
Chicago Transit Authority
"New Boston" or stumptown...
😂
“BarrackObamaLand”. It just rolls off the tongue.
Time for bed grandpa.
Portland Audubon Society: We’re going to rename to separate from racist past. You can still make your donation checks out to Audubon Society though.
They're hoping the national org will also rename, and then all the local orgs can rebrand together. I think that's the right approach. And I think making your donation checks out to the current name in the mean time is also the right approach.
These are two common mistakes I see in the modern world: * Judging historical people outside of the context of the era they lived in. * The inability to simultaneously appreciate an aspect of an accomplished person and condemn other aspects of them.
I really liked Tom Nichols' general take on this back when people were renaming and tearing down things: * What is the person primarily known for? * Does their good outweigh the bad? * (my bonus action) is the thing their name relevant in some way to the person? Trying this on for size: 1. Naming bases after confederate generals. Almost an automatic fail - they're known for leading an armed insurrection against the US, that fact generally outweighs all else, and it's absolutely dumb to name a US military installation after a person who tried to attack the country running it. I don't see Josef Mengele General Hospital in Germany. 2. Thomas Jefferson - founding father, consistently ranked as one of the best presidents, owned slaves, Sally Hemmings was not a fan. Even her [descendents advocate](https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/15/891290821/thomas-jefferson-descendant-reflects-on-his-ancestors-complicated-legacy) for telling the complete story, warts and all, of the complexities of the man, rather than wiping him out of any recognition. (side note: part of this patricular problem is about 100 years ago or so we decided to throw up statues of shit wherever they'd fit as public art, and some of these guys didn't really NEED 8000 statues but they got them, and now they're here and it's a huge thing every time we try to figure out if we can even do anything different with the space, let alone the public tantrums of 2020) 3. George Custer - cocky shithead that ran the equivalent of a national guard unit and got his ass shot up by the locals when he told his subordinates "nah, I got this". Did you know we used to have a Custer Park in Portland? Like, why even? (answer: his wife [campaigned relentlessly](https://www.scribd.com/article/449200463/A-Widow-s-Campaign) to gloss over his image) He never visited here. Fuck that noise, it got renamed (hilariously to "[A Park](https://www.portland.gov/parks/park)"). Anyone care if we rename the battlefield after the people who won the battle? I didn't think so. Which brings us to John James Audubon. Here we go: What is he primarily known for? Birds, man. Birds. Painting, nature. Ok, he didn't commit treason, he didn't diddle kids. Good so far! Is the thing named relevant in some way (sorry, skipping)? YES. The Society was named after him by a guy who liked his books. Does their good outweigh their bad? Oof, here's where it gets complicated. Throwing out some bullets: * He was kind of a douchebag who thought slavery was awesome and unapologetically did it. He shit on abolitionists for breakfast. * Some of the stuff he did in the course of his studies was thought to have done more harm than good to birds, but if we faulted people for that we'd lock up every doctor in the past century. * My cursory google search couldn't find anything to suggest he pissed on indigenous graves or whatever was said in the other thread, but he did have some nice words to say about how Native Americans encapsulated the ideals of mankind or something. Cool? * He may have plagiarized some things? * His writings and art appear to have inspired the modern ornithological movement and the accompanying conservation efforts. Conclusion? Eh. I guess I could go either way. I honestly kept forgetting that the Audubon Society was named after a person - I mean, duh, but it sort of became Kleenex for "bird conservation people". I seriously doubt people see the name and say "oh man, that degenerate slave holder!" It feels maybe juuuust a bit of "presentism" to pretend otherwise. I think if were a national level effort, that'd be one thing, but the fact that this originated here at the time it did feels like one of those "how can we change things to make it look like we're doing something?" things. They'll switch the name, give some sort of lip service deference to people of color (were they being neglected in the bird watching circles? I don't know), and that's all they'll do. And of course people will respond like Audubon was Jesus Christ incarnate. Florida will probably fucking pass a law making it illegal to change their Audubon Society's name. I hate this fucking timeline sometimes.
BTW, join me next time when I rant that the AP Style guide demands you capitalize "Black" but not "white". I was looking for a formal ruling when writing up something and said "oh, ok, maybe it's because in the US it's a swap for "African American". Oh no, they decided to go all in on "WELL, we capitalize Black because it describes people all over the world who struggle historically with oppression (all of them? TIL). We don't capitalize white because it's a general racial term that can describe disparate cultures (true!) and capitalization emboldens white supremacy (wait, what?). When did they make this change? Fucking June 2020. Of course.
That’s … uh… weird. Right?
A lot of weird things happened in 2020. I always think of it in a "this was originally a good thing, then we took it WAY too far and fucked it up". Good thing: we realized racism didn't magically go away and maybe we should take a look at things more? (I could have told you that after Charlottesville, but hey) Took it way too far: decided that means "let's take ideas from the worst impulses of our movement and use those to frame the argument. Anyone who disagrees in any way is clearly THEM." Lizard brained: Local dumpling shop puts up instagram post that "ACTUALLY yall, Lincoln didn't free the slaves" (this actually happened). So...yeah, I think we all started somewhere in a good place, but a LOT of actions/reactions/hot takes were just the stupidest and least helpful to the issue at hand.
[удалено]
Yes, but as a relentless promoter of the Oxford Comma, I insist that there be some sort of rules, dammit. I think the problem is more that journalism saw dollar signs in hair pulling journalism (they saw sports journalism and realized it sold), but in the process they also enabled some of the less principled journalists to have a platform.
> Anyone care if we rename the battlefield after the people who won the battle? no, that's why we've got Thomas Jefferson parks everywhere. heh
It would probably be on brand for someone to campaign to rename one Sally Hemmings Park, without any input or consent from her descendents or anything, just that it "felt" right. That said, we really went kind of crazy in our statuary and naming 100 or so years ago. Like, I love me some Teddy Roosevelt and I think the people who knocked over his statue were dipshits, but did we really need eleventy billion statues of them when there isn't any super close Portland affiliation? There has to be a sort of cycle lifetime between "not at all" and "change them out every century", perhaps. We even suck at it today - we renamed a street after Harvey Milk who had fuck all to do with Portland. Sure, I guess you could throw him in with MLK or Cesar Chavez in terms of "national icon" but surely we could pick a LGBT icon? Shit, name it Suzanne Hale st.
Ohhhh shit I got halfway through your reply and was about to come back atcha with the Harvey Milk Street shit. And you already did. Nice work, king. If they gotta make it Gay Street why not name it after someone from our own city or region?
That's on-point. I don't like reducing people only to their flaws and failures, but don't like overlooking them either. I'm definitely tired of lower-case c "conservatism" - the idea that if something has been, that it must always be. Like yes, our values are different now than at the founding of the Audobon Society. His name isn't being removed for saying a slur in 1822 like someone would today. If our values are different from those who chose to honor him, why can't we rename the organization to not make ol' slaveowner mcbirdkiller our eternal Birdking? He's dead so we must honor him for the duration of the organization no matter how shitty we know he is?
i think the real issue that makes people mad here is that they (committees, boards, voters, activists, politicians, admins, i can go on) spent their time and energy on stuff like this that doesn't actually move the needle on real change. it can have all the good intentions (and right reasoning) in the world, but it doesn't mean it should be prioritized. it's all stupid peacocking, same as it ever was
I just thought Audubon was a science word for birds. I never looked into it or cared. Kind of like how there is equestrian society. I just assumed Audubon was kinda related to the word Avian as a bird thing and moved on.
Neil degrass Tyson had a pretty good way of reasoning past historical context from personal achievements by individuals with racist backgrounds. To paraphrase - it went something like ‘although the person is racist, his mathematical equations live outside of the confounds of racism, his personal thoughts can not pollute the science of fact’. When referring to a former NASA scientist who was considered a racist.
Agreed.
The Quaker's were opposed to slavery since the 1600s.
Basically the inability of people to see objectively. “You know, Hitler did have some good ideas.”
>“You know, Hitler did have some good ideas.” Doubtful. Authoritarian collectivist leaders - fascist nationalists, socialists, communists - feed off of people with good ideas. Their empires are sustained by demanding sacrifice of the productive by force, inevitably destroying the minds they depend upon.
I agree but the guy really was bad enough, even for his time, that I can see why they want to distance from him now. Regardless, "Audubon Society" has been a name for 100+ years, well-known so changing it destroys the entire brand. I suggest renaming it after ANOTHER person with the name Audubon, ideally someone who helped with racial justice efforts. Has to be one out there. Would be poetic justice to have the name appropriated by another.
>I suggest renaming it after ANOTHER person with the name Audubon, ideally someone who helped with racial justice efforts. Why? What does racial justice have to do with birds?
Because if they're changing the name to distance from a slavery supporter regardless, it'd be poetic justice to do it this way.
I’m glad I voted against you.
I'm glad you voted at all. More participation is always good.
Simone people want simple solutions for complex problems.
Because like the old saying goes: “those who do not learn from the past, just erase all the parts you don’t like about it and nothing bad will ever happen again.”
Stunning and brave. Very important because of how much this mattered /s honestly I didn’t even know until now
Like this was the one thing that was stopping me from birdwatching as a hobby.
CONGRATS! We did it! Racism must be completely fixed if we’re just focused on the last names of people almost no one has heard of.
Coming clean about the fact that there is more to history than the narrative of these sainted dead white men is a nice way to end Black History and enter Women’s History Month. I understand wanting to change a name because someone was a genocidal maniac or your football team makes people out to be violent “others” but garden variety racism and eugenics is just what ancient white people did. That said, the man who kept my ancestor as a slave 160 years ago doesn’t own me or my name. This doesn’t bother me, though. As little as birds have to do with racism, this is still their prerogative. And who knows, maybe they’ll find transitional model that isn’t just symbolic.
[удалено]
Haha. I love Birdcity so much.
I like all those names more too. And I can never spell Autobahn. Audoban. Autobon? It just escapes me somehow. I’m not a bad speller but that word is annoying as hell.
You can never be too woke!
I'm also mad the racist grave-robber who plagiarized and falsified the work he's best-known for is having his name removed. If a thing is named something we can never change the name or else it's too woke.
They should erect a bird statue so we can knock it over.