[Tweeters] re Historical Perspective on Re-naming Birds

[Jeremy Davis]

Not that anyone’s keeping track but I did want to raise my hand as someone
in favor of these changes.  It’s likely a small drop in a large bucket to
try to bring more people - and in particular, more kinds of people - to
ornithology and to conservation but every little bit helps.  I think the
rationale in the AOS document Steve linked to is reasonable and
thoughtful.  The statistic from DuBay et al was particularly surprising to
me.

Anyway, wonderful to see such a spirited debate!  It’s been amazing to see
how many of my friends have read articles about the renaming and forwarded
links to me to see what I thought.  It reminds me of the PT Barnum quote
about publicity.  “I don’t care what the newspapers say about me as long as
they spell my name right.”

Thanks,
Jeremy Davis
Kenmore, WA


On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:04 PM Steve Hampton <stevechampton at gmail.com>
wrote:


> I encourage readers to look at the recommendations to the American

> Ornithology Society Council, especially pages 11-19. The rationale for the

> changes go well beyond the simple media characterizations of a few bad

> apples and babies with the bathwater. There is no desire to cancel or erase

> anyone, but simply that human history and honors be remembered in ways that

> are separate from the English names of birds.

>

> The document is posted by the AOS here.

>

> https://americanornithology.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/1-AOS-EBNC_recommendations_23_10_19.pdf

>

> I suggest additional reflection regarding the concept that present mores

> are being applied to past behavior. This argument centers white history to

> the exclusion of Black and Native perspectives. Blacks have always opposed

> slavery and Natives have always opposed ethnic cleansing. And whites have

> been pretty split over those things -- even fighting a civil war. The

> English naming process at the time excluded most segments of society and,

> even within 1850s ornithology, had little process for moderation. For

> example, Scott's Oriole was coined when Scott had just been a major party

> candidate for president. So, a completely inappropriate bird name and yet

> there was no process to challenge it.

>

> In the context of our present reality, with environmental conservation

> routinely falling out of the top concerns of politicians, and birding and

> ornithology (and outdoor activities and environmental science in general)

> struggling to be more than just a luxury hobby and issue for white people,

> the AOS is hoping to send a message that they are serious about their

> commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and want to broaden support

> for birds and bird conservation across a wide demographic, especially

> younger generations. I hope the re-naming process, which will involve

> public input, generates excitement among those who previously never thought

> of themselves as bird advocates.

>

>

> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 3:35 PM Dennis Paulson <dennispaulson at comcast.net>

> wrote:

>

>> Chris, here’s my take on it.

>>

>> Like several people who have written in, I see this movement to erase

>> honorific names of dead people who we would consider unkind as having

>> limited merit. It won’t change anything about the various -isms that are

>> still common in our society, and good grief, why can’t all that energy and

>> enthusiasm be directed where it should be? And I think the thing most wrong

>> about it is not having any idea where it will stop. McCown was a

>> Confederate general, yes, but I read that he had renounced slavery some

>> time thereafter. That in itself is interesting and will be lost now that

>> McCown is lost. Why not learn from history rather than erase it?

>>

>> I think the ‘intellectual laziness’ referred mostly to the decision made

>> that because we can’t really draw the line between bad dead people and good

>> dead people, let’s make it easy on ourselves and cancel them all. I

>> wouldn’t concern myself with it too much if it stopped with the common

>> names of North American birds (although I do strongly object to that), but

>> that very thing happening and being presented in an “official" way will

>> encourage people to go even further.

>>

>> Many of our states, counties, cities, streets, rivers, mountain peaks,

>> etc., etc., will be proposed for renaming, won't they? Won’t this be a

>> nightmare for map makers, book writers, historians of any kind—and the rest

>> of the people who will be confused by all of this in the future? If I lived

>> on Audubon Avenue, some day I might not be able to find my house . . .

>>

>> The fact that people are even talking about changing *scientific names*

>> is appalling to those of us who have named species and worked on their

>> relationships. Such an activity certainly deserves all the resistance that

>> can be generated against it. People with ideas such as that are at the

>> forefront of making this a much more divisive than inclusive activity, as

>> far as I can see.

>>

>> Dennis Paulsn

>> Seattle

>>

>> On Nov 24, 2023, at 2:39 PM, J Christian Kessler <1northraven at gmail.com>

>> wrote:

>>

>> Mr. Egger --

>>

>> I can only speak for myself. While I don't entirely agree with Dennis or

>> Diane, I understand their point of view, and agree on some elements of it.

>> Your argument is fundamentally different than theirs:  you accuse all who

>> advocate for "bird names for birds" in any form of being "intellectually

>> lazy", and then proceed to conflat any proposal (beyond renaming McGown's

>> Longspur and it appears a few others) with the most extreme sorts of

>> proposals (some of which I have not heard being advocated by anyone, or

>> even referred to seriously, prior to your note).

>>

>> Perhaps you could explain (1) how any/any proposal at renaming birds

>> (again, beyond the renaming of McGown's Longspur and a few similar cases)

>> is "intellectually lazy," and (2) how your your conflating virtually all

>> imaginable proposals for change as being essentially the same is not itself

>> "intellectually lazy".

>>

>> Chris Kessler

>>

>>

>>

>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 12:52 PM Mark Egger <m.egger at comcast.net> wrote:

>>

>>> Agree completely with Diane and Dennis. This trendy name-changing

>>> obsession lacks any sort of nuance or reason and suggests the efforts of

>>> lazy people who want simplistic solutions to complex questions. As a

>>> life-long birder AND a dedicated botanist, this issue is one involving all

>>> naturalist pursuits. There are current purposals to not only alter common

>>> names but to ban all scientific names memorializing people AND to re-name

>>> all existing names of that sort. I find these proposals to be deeply flawed

>>> and absurd. There is absolutely no reason why these re-namings, some (e.g.

>>> McGown) that are quite justified, but in most cases blanket re-naming seems

>>> both intellectually lazy but a deep insult to an enormous number of

>>> biologists and naturalists who were very fine human beings and who devoted

>>> their lives to enriching our knowledge of the natural world and

>>> biodiversity.

>>>

>>> On Nov 24, 2023, at 12:01 PM,

>>> tweeters-request at mailman11.u.washington.edu wrote:

>>>

>>> Historical Perspective on Re-naming Birds (Diann MacRae)

>>>

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> Tweeters mailing list

>>> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

>>> http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

>>>

>>

>>

>> --

>> "moderation in everything, including moderation"

>> Rustin Thompson

>> _______________________________________________

>> Tweeters mailing list

>> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

>> http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> Tweeters mailing list

>> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

>> http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

>>

>

>

> --

> ​Steve Hampton​

> Port Townsend, WA  (qatáy)

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Tweeters mailing list

> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

> http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20231124/db0ebd2d/attachment.html>