A name change seems appropriate to me. Audubon’s name doesn’t have to be cleansed from the organization, but de-emphasizing it and owning his checkered past is important to do.
Context my friend, context…
What possible context can save the argument you’re trying to present here?
It was a glib response to someone saying that the rightwingers would come out in favor of changing names of things. If they are yelling about names that need to be changed to argue “hypocrisy” I’d say that you’ve pretty solidly won the public debate…
SDMB pedants will pedant though.
Way to turn the argument around.
Not.
Sorry, if you want your ridiculous hypotheticals to be recognized as such, you need to do more work to make them distinct from your actual arguments.
This is a small cause–to you. I’m going to hazard a guess that you’re not a member of the Seattle birding community, much less a member of the Seattle Audubon Society?
Because for them, the SAS isn’t a trivial deal. Those members–especially the board members, y’know, the ones making this change–deal with the name on a daily basis. It’s a big part of their lives, in a way that for you it isn’t.
The personal is political. The folks that have devoted a big chunk of their lives to birding in Seattle have been doing so under the name of an enslaver. They’d like to stop doing that.
Sure, removing his name isn’t going to end racial disparity. But it’s a small step in the right direction by folks for whom the step is significant.
Opposing such steps is truly trifling.
You know what, if you actually want to make a point, how about engaging on the actual meat of my argument.
Or, it educates, includes marginalized groups, and normalizes examining past wrongs.
So I assume you think that gay and trans people need to shut up about their rights and marriages and lives until voting reform happens?
Okay, sure.
No it doesn’t. It raises awareness of issues.
No it doesn’t. It normalizes change.
No it doesn’t. People changing the things in their immediate sphere of influence normalizes changing the things in your immediate sphere of influence.
No it isn’t. It’s happening because some people are changing their own hobbies in a small way that makes their own hobbies a little bit less shitty.
No it doesn’t. It never has. This is a bullshit argument and it always has been.
I disagree. Making changes shows that changes can be made. When people see that others can do it, they start to think that they themselves might be able to do it too. And from the other side, it’s harder to resist small changes when we can all see that small changes don’t cause catastrophe. Boiling the frog works both ways.
A groundswell of outrage is a failure mode of an incremental approach. It’s not something we should be hoping for.
Alright.
Whose political or social capital is the Audubon Society spending here? Who are they asking to expend time or effort on making this change, who would otherwise not be involved?
Who are the “busybodies” in this situation? Are the people who run the Audubon Society “busybodies” for making decisions about the organization they’ve been hired to run? Because that seems like a nonstandard definition. If, instead, you’re inferring that this decision is being forced on the Audubon Society by outside agents, what is your evidence for this? As you note, there is no “groundswell of outrage” over the name, so what lever are these “busybodies” using to force this change on the Audubon Society?
You seem to assume a depressive outlook as the standard mode of human behavior. I don’t think it’s universally true that everyone is emotionally depleted by these issues. I think many people are energized by them. Small victories give you the motivation to push forward on big victories.
I also don’t think it’s true that this strengthens opposition to meaningful change. I don’t think there’s anyone out there who’s genuinely thinking, “I would support the fight against climate change, but I won’t because the Audubon Society changed its name.” Right wing ideologues will likely seize on this as another example of “liberals gone mad,” but they will do that with literally any and every thing liberals do, so there’s no point in trying to constrain our actions based on right-wing criticism.
Maybe they can say a guy owning 20 slaves is OK but 21 or more is not?
San Fran school board tried to rename 44 schools last year and that went over like a lead baloon. One of the names was Lincoln. They backed off once it became public. They have 54k students which is very low for a city that size.
Why on earth would you need the tens place?
From the OP’s own link:
Now, I’ll admit that I personally am irrationally bothered when the names of things are changed (buildings, ballparks, organizations, etc.). If it’s the same thing that it used to be, why can’t I use the same name to refer to it? And to say that a name can’t be used because of unfortunate associations with the origins of that name smacks of the etymological fallacy. I think it’s silly to refer to sauerkraut as “liberty cabbage” or to French fries as “freedom fries.” If I found out that the Earl of Sandwich had been an asshole, I wouldn’t stop eating sandwiches or calling them sandwiches.
But, like I said, I am irrationally bothered by such name changes. If you are bothered by your society being named after someone reprehensible, surely your botheration is, at worst, no more irrational than mine.
I think it’s pretty different. Naming a society (or a bird, or a ballpark) after someone is intended to honor the namesake, and using that name continues the honor. The Audubon Society’s name is intended to honor Audubon for his contributions to birding. If you decide that the person you’ve been honoring is not worth honoring, changing the name is the appropriate course of action.
“French fries” is not intended to honor the French, nor is sauerkraut an honor to–I almost wrote “Krauts” but figured I better look up the term first, and sure enough, the etymology of “Kraut” is a derogatory reference to “cabbage,” so it’s good that I didn’t use the term.
Did anyone say “it’s the names of things after people who died in 1851?” They did say it’s the economy stupid
Talking about renaming stuff named after Lincoln, Jefferson, etc really makes Dems/Liberals bad. And I think many liberals agree with me but they don’t speak up for fear they might be branded a Nazi or KKK fan.
Imaginary support is the best kind, ain’t it?
For one thing, it detracts from their mission. Here in America, unless you’ve been living under a rock all your life, you KNOW, at least in broad strokes, what the Audubon Society does. But by changing their name, they have to expend time, effort, and money in spreading the word about their new name. There’s supposed to be a benefit to rebranding, but name changes like this carry no benefit whatsoever.