Changing the names of birds

[balzaccom]

I lived in Spain many years ago. In Spain, after the king abdicated in the early 1930s, streets named for the monarchy were given names like Liberty and Democracy. Then Franco invaded and won the Civil War, and named the largest street after Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. Imagine writing that on an envelope. (For the younger readers, and envelope is what we used to send a written letter via the postal service.)

And once Franco died and the king (with democracy) was re-installed, most of those streets were renamed once again. In Catalunya, they were all given Catalan names. So it's possible that someone alive today could have lived on the same street with three different names in their lifetimes.

Is this "weaponization?" Or is it just renaming things to reflect the sensitivities of the times? I love the fact that the Piazza Hierba in Verona probably traces its name back to the original fruit and vegetable market of the Romans, but I am also well aware that other locations in that town have been renamed over the years, to honor later people or recognize different uses. And may still continue to be renamed in the future.

BTW, my favorite name of a street is in Bullas, in southern Spain. The town has two plazas--and old plaza, called Plaza Vieja, and a newer one, called Plaza Nueva. The street that runs between them is called Calle Entreplaza--literally, Between Plazaz Street. One has to assume it had a different name before the Plaza Nueva was created...

[rayfound]

Really it is not complicated at all, renaming species in this context is merely a symptom of weaponizing political correctness.

This problem has been addressed elsewhere in culture. Take for example the arts. It is considered appropriate to boycott a current artist and their works, if they do not measure up to whatever the cultural fitness criteria of the day happens to be. On the other hand it is also considered an exercise in futility to apply current standards to dead artists and their works. Thus today's cultivated society shuns the works of known racist, contemporary rock groups, yet embrace the greatness of the works of German nationalist and anti-Semite, Richard Wagner, particularly his Flight of the Valkyries. Ah but you can't reassign authorship! So true, but if you get hung up on this detail, do consider we'd know nothing of Wagner if not for the fact he was in good standing with his compatriots, and was considered worthy of attention; otherwise he'd be just another unknown soul, his works lost to history.

So, while similar I don't think artwork produced by an individual to be analogous to a creation of nature being named in someone's honor. As mentioned elsewhere - the Bird/Plant/Peak/etc... exists whether the honored individual is honored by their naming or not. Artwork, music, etc... doesn't.

There's no re-writing history - if we look into one of these creatures that get's renamed, the records will still indicate "first described by XYZ" or "Previously known as XYX" (for an example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granuloma ... lyangiitis ).

Language and words have meaning - by continuing to use names associated with particularly heinous people, we CONTINUE to honor their contributions. That said, it isn't even what is being discussed in the article linked - they are taking the step of renaming ALL birds named in honor of Humans, I'd say implicitly, to avoid these questions of judgement over individuals of the past.

Especially when it comes to plants and animals, renaming offers the opportunity to make names that are evocative of the organism itself as noted in article:

Renaming the birds, in contrast, offered an opportunity to highlight unique features of the birds themselves. Unlike "Wilson's warbler," for example, the names "Yellow Warbler" or "Golden Winged Warbler" offer up a useful description, he says.

This is what I think get's lost. There's nothing being done to ERASE the history of these individuals - the effort is for us to stop honoring their legacy. As many noted, in many cases these aren't the first renaming - indigenous populations undoubtedly had names for many of these things before Europeans came and "discovered" them.

I don't actually have particularly strong opinions on this to be quite frank, other than to say I think the notion that it is "Weaponizing PC" or whatever is frankly, a pretty juvenile and unserious reactionary perspective. Weaponizing implies it is an effort to harm or marginalize some group, which is quite clearly not the case.

[dave54]

Weaponization is a strong term. I'll let others debate the appropriateness of it in this issue.

In many cases, renaming is erasing history. Case in point -- The push to rename Negro Camp Mountain in Lassen County. It has the word 'negro' in it so it must be racist, right? Some faux-offended activists (non-local) demanded it be renamed. The Forest Service and county pushed back with the historical record. It was named after an early settler family with the surname Negro. The descendants of that family, still living in the area, demanded with equal fervor the name remain unchanged. I am siding with the family.
Don't get me started on renaming plants, like Digger Pine to Gray Pine. Now trees are racist.

[creekfeet]

I generally don't care too much about the issue of renaming places/things. That being said, I've always thought it was odd that the tallest peak in the lower forty-eight is named after a man whose most famous contribution to Sierra lore is being dead wrong about how the range formed, being diametrically opposed to John Muir's theory of glaciation. I feel like it's akin to if Evolution Valley was named Creationism Valley.

Also, I've always gotten a kick out of the fact that the world's largest tree (or at least a really big tree that's conveniently located close enough to a road to be labeled the world's largest tree) is named for a general that famously burned down thousands of trees on his March to the Sea. Besides, it would be way more hilarious if it still had it's original name of the Karl Marx tree.

Lastly, in the comment above me I see the term "digger pine" referenced. I used to live in Auburn, CA where these trees are prevalent, and local people of Miwok/Nisenan/Maidu descent regarded the term "digger" as insensitive and dehumanizing. Given that it already has the accepted common names of gray pine and foothill pine, I don't think it's that big of a deal to call it something that doesn't denigrate anyone.

[Wandering Daisy]

Other than a few really objectionable and hurtful names, I rather keep the original and use it for a "teaching moment". People in power at the time of naming always determine the names. People who discover species usually get to name the find. It has nothing to do with their personal lives. Cultural norms change over time and what is now politically correct could easily become horrific to future generation's eyes. I am more in agreement of down-playing names or statues, etc. when they are a part of public spaces (rather than nature). Yet I hate to see them destroyed - rather that they get moved into a historical museum or such and used again as a teaching tool. Good, bad or ugly, you cannot erase history but you can learn from it.

[balzaccom]

I generally don't care too much about the issue of renaming places/things. That being said, I've always thought it was odd that the tallest peak in the lower forty-eight is named after a man whose most famous contribution to Sierra lore is being dead wrong about how the range formed, being diametrically opposed to John Muir's theory of glaciation. I feel like it's akin to if Evolution Valley was named Creationism Valley.

Also, I've always gotten a kick out of the fact that the world's largest tree (or at least a really big tree that's conveniently located close enough to a road to be labeled the world's largest tree) is named for a general that famously burned down thousands of trees on his March to the Sea. Besides, it would be way more hilarious if it still had it's original name of the Karl Marx tree.

Lastly, in the comment above me I see the term "digger pine" referenced. I used to live in Auburn, CA where these trees are prevalent, and local people of Miwok/Nisenan/Maidu descent regarded the term "digger" as insensitive and dehumanizing. Given that it already has the accepted common names of gray pine and foothill pine, I don't think it's that big of a deal to call it something that doesn't denigrate anyone.

Nice post. And don't forget that those massive trees, which only grow in California, were named for a Cherokee born in North Carolina who had no real connection to anything in the Golden State.

[Gogd]

I think Wandering Daisy states my POV better than I can muster.

Point of clarification: What I meant by weaponization of PC was not to describe an act intent on harming someone or something; merely that certain interest groups use tactics, such as renaming stuff to make their own statement, or to attempt to disassociates places, things and current society from its past. It is a superficial makeover, however, and rarely accomplishes any of these objectives. As several others point out: we lose the color and lessons of history when we attempt to obliterate vestiges of our past. As far as honoring unsavory individuals by allowing their name to be associated with their contributions, keep in mind we ultimately are honoring the contribution of the scientist or surveyor, not the person, per se - as they say in the military respect the rank, not the person. Lastly, it is one thing to rename a location or thing to honor a more recent event, person or culture, or return to referring to things by their former historical labels. Those intentions are meant to illuminate and inform. But renaming stuff because it doesn't fit our current sensibilities - sigh - don't we have more productive avenues to express what we stand for?

Ed