[Tweeters] Inappropriate posts - from the thread Amerigo Vespucci

[Carmelo Quetell via Tweeters]

Dennis,

I did not deride anyone or call you or anyone a racist or specifically accuse anyone of being "okay with keeping others out in order to maintain the status quo". That being said, you may want to sit with why you thought that sentence was directed towards you. There are always going to be those who want to maintain the status quo, so that idea isn't radical by any means.

Since you want to center yourself in this conversation, let's remember you were one of the original posters who started the name change conversation on Tweeters. You were neutral at first, but eventually escalated to making your opposition clear and later going so far as to promote the petition in opposition to the name changes via Tweeters.

Since you are so concerned with the high-hanging fruit, why have you not responded to my point about including Puerto Rico and Mexico in the ABA Area? This is now the second time I've mentioned it via Tweeters.

Lastly, as stated by Steve and others, just because you don't fully understand the significance or value of the name changes doesn't mean that they're not important. Also, it's not the responsibility of those who do feel it is important to spell it out for you in a fashion you deem convincing.

I look forward to witnessing your continued efforts to promote inclusivity in the birding community.

-Carmelo Quetell


________________________________
From: Dennis Paulson <dennispaulson at comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:56 PM
To: Carmelo Quetell <melocq22 at msn.com>; Steve Hampton <stevechampton at gmail.com>
Cc: TWEETERS tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Tweeters] Inappropriate posts - from the thread Amerigo Vespucci

I’m sorry, but I have to respond to these extreme statements.

No one who I know is “okay with keeping others out in order to maintain the status quo.” That inflammatory statement just doesn’t hack it in reality. Just about all of us old white males (and there are plenty of females) derided by Steve and Carmelo are in complete agreement with you in wanting birding and birds to be open to anyone who shows interest. But I guess you are just writing about bird names.

My argument is entirely that changing bird names is the lowest-hanging fruit that entails making no effort at all in encouraging others into our world, while in fact causing chaos and confusion out of proportion for the good it will do.

For over 60 years, I have never done anything but encourage others to be interested in birds and the environment, and I have never had any indication that it was the names of the birds that kept anyone from that interest. I still don’t think so, and I doubt very much that it was an issue until you have raised and promoted it. You surely have a better idea of the real reasons.

As has been repeatedly said, why don’t you put your energies into making the world a better place for everyone? I and so many others fail to see how changing bird names offers any solution to that. Your arguments are generic, very persuasive, but they don’t really present any evidence relating bird names to sociological realities.

Even worse, how dare you use the term “racist” on any of us who believe that bird names shouldn’t be changed? With your virtue signaling and castigating of older birders and ornithologists, you are the ones causing this rift in our community that may never be healed.

Dennis Paulson
Seattle

On Jun 25, 2024, at 9:00 AM, Carmelo Quetell via Tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu<mailto:tweeters at u.washington.edu>> wrote:

Steve, thank you for taking the time and energy to highlight some of the nuances and impacts of the continued opposition to the AOS name change via Tweeters. To your points:

In the op-ed<https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/bird-names-should-be-about-birds-not-people/> I authored, many people were upset when I wrote:

"As of now, the majority of birders are white and have fewer years ahead of them than they do behind them. In a world of technology addiction and rampant nature deficit disorder, can the birding community tolerate the cost of remaining a Good Ol’ Boys Club? Most importantly, can our feathered siblings continue to bear the burden of human chauvinism?"

I was called an ageist and a racist in the comment section for making these observations but look at what demographic (at least on the Tweeters listserv) has been most vocal in their opposition and resistance to change (even though this isn't the first time there has been naming changes). Also, look at how many announcements there have been on Tweeters in the last 6 months alone regarding the passing of people in the birding community. Who is going to stand in their place in defense of the birds and the land if the community is pushing younger and non-white people away with their own personal biases, resistance, and vitriol?

Sadly, some people in the birding community are okay with keeping others out in order to maintain the status quo. While there are a variety of reasons why this is so, we must remember that while it is not always about race, it is never not about race. Colorism and White Supremacy live in every single person, regardless of that person's skin color or ethnicity. We are all imperfect, with our own wounds, traumas, biases, and life stories.

We are only being asked to take a small step in a new direction. When you had to start calling an Old Squaw a Long-tailed Duck, did you die? When you had to call a Canada Jay a Gray Jay, only to later call it a Canada Jay again, was your life ruined? Also, Audubon was the kindest person to birds, even though he painted them beautifully. It will be okay.

And if you are genuinely concerned with making changes that are going to actually lead to morescholarship<https://www.audubon.org/news/systemic-barriers-hinder-bird-research-say-124-latin-american-ornithologists>, funding, conservation, and inclusivity...will all of you who oppose the AOS name changes instead support an effort to include Puerto Rico and Mexico in the ABA Area? Would you use your contacts and membership in the ABA to put this up for a vote and support it?

Puerto Rico has been a U.S. colony since 1898. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens by birth since 1917. Puerto Ricans have fought and died in every major U.S. military engagement since WW1, and they even fought in naval battles on the side of the American colonists in the Revolutionary War. The sole tropical rainforest in the U.S. National Forest System (El Yunque) is in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is home to over 300 bird species (18 endemic), many of which we regularly celebrate witnessing in the continental U.S.

Mexico is part of North America, same as Canada. Portions of the historic northern border of Mexico were as far north as some towns in Oregon. Why does the Chihuahuan Raven count towards your Big Year total as long as it's spotted on the northern side of the Rio Grande?

Again, how many of you are genuinely willing to stand for a change that would be more beneficial to birds and future generations of birders than a name change?





________________________________
From: Tweeters <tweeters-bounces at mailman11.u.washington.edu<mailto:tweeters-bounces at mailman11.u.washington.edu>> on behalf of Steve Hampton via Tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu<mailto:tweeters at u.washington.edu>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:35 AM
To: TWEETERS tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu<mailto:tweeters at u.washington.edu>>
Subject: [Tweeters] Inappropriate posts - from the thread Amerigo Vespucci

In the absence of any intervention by a Tweeters administrator, I will reply.

These posts against proposed bird name changes - usually with incorrect information and speculation regarding scope, costs and benefits, and other aspects - are inappropriate here and do harm to the birding community and the use of Tweeters as representative of the birding community.

Without trying to convince anyone why bird names (and organization names) matter, I'll point out that they seem to matter to a lot of people. Regardless of the rationale, there are three basic facts about this issue:

1) The demographic breakdown on this issue is stark. Most younger people and people of color support the changes. Nearly all of the opposition comes from white people over 65. This tells me, from a diversity, equity, and inclusion perspective, there is a "there" there. We should pay attention to why this is.

2) Due to historical biases and discrimination in opportunities and privileges, the former group are the exact same demographics that are under-represented in birding; and the latter are far more likely to be today's field trip leaders, esteemed ornithologists, and conservation organization leaders. This is evident and much has been written about it.

3) Having the latter group publicly dismiss the former group (on any issue) is both insensitive and reckless when it comes to the future of birding. Using Tweeters as a safe space for the latter group to openly gripe and plan opposition is "gatekeeping" - public actions that preserve the status quo and drive certain newcomers away. Intentions don't matter here; impacts do. This is why so many younger people and people of color do not participate in Tweeters, certain other social media groups, many birding organizations, and their field trips.

I'm dubious anyone will learn from this post, or be inspired to learn more. And I'm dubious about my continued participation in Tweeters.

I do wish everyone good birding,


--
Steve Hampton
Port Townsend, WA  (qatáy)


_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu<mailto: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/20240625/98473e89/attachment.html>