Audubon society changing name?

Once again, trying to be charitable and assuming you’re talking about the same thing the rest of us are talking about is kicking me in the teeth.

Okay: you’re completely off topic. Got it.

The reason to change these names is so in the future we don’t have to explain why we continue to honor slave owners.

I agree. But likewise, worrying about what a hypothetical future civilization will think is right is also not a consideration.

I deny this. I hope it is mostly true, but i don’t think it’s globally true, and i fear that we are about to see a period where morality becomes worse.

The claim is not that there are never setbacks. It is that the overall trend throughout human history has been toward more enlightened morality. If you question this, try Pinker’s The Better Angels Of Our Nature.

Yes, we are talking about Great people of the past who are being judged by the standards of today.

All the Romans and all the Greek Philosophers too? Take down all their busts and statues?

We need to then rename some states and such- Carolina, Maryland - Virginia, & Georgia. Those Monarchs owned lands where there were slaves.

Yes, we all know slavery was bad and evil. It is rather late to be jumping on the bandwagon.

Maybe instead we can work on racism, bigotry, homophobia, and etc. Those are today’s problems. Let us not honor or vote for anyone who endorses those things. I am not worried about John James Audubon from 200 years ago, I am worried about trump, DeSantis, Abbot, Cruz and others. Let’s concentrate our time and energy on those bigots.

People really need to abandon this ill-conceived trope that the world has some finite amount of time and energy to dedicate to good, and that it’s zero-sum: doing one good thing makes it less likely that another thing will get done.

That just isn’t the way any of this works. Politics, social movements, all of these things work by drawing people’s attention to issues, by building momentum. Doing one thing makes it more likely that other things will happen.

Make the case that changing the name of the Audobon society is pointless and stupid if that’s what you believe. But don’t make the ridiculous suggestion that changing the name of the Audobon society will distract people’s attention and deplete their energy and make it more likely that Trump will get reelected.

“Unless we change everything, we shouldn’t change anything” is a poor excuse to do nothing.
Got anything better?

They have a direct connection to yesterday’s problems. Ignoring root causes is a big mistake when trying to change society.

Except for some fringe people nobody wants to get rid of Washington, Jefferson , Franklin. etc names I wonder how long that lasts.

Try The Dawn of Everything for a slightly different take.

But more importantly, I DON’T think that we remove the names and likenesses of historical figures we now deem to be evil to punish them, nor to threaten future punishment on those who today act immorally by the standards of the future. I think we do it to separate ourselves, today, from people that we don’t want to be associated with today.

I certainly agree that our goal as human beings should be to do what is right and moral to the best of our knowledge and ability. I don’t think we should do this to protect our legacy, however, but because it’s the right thing to do.

Why do you think that removing the names used to honor people who were racist, bigots, or homophobes isn’t working on those things? Being inclusive is an important part of the fight, and for many those names are an obstacle. Perhaps not to you, but they are to others.

…in the context of chattel slavery, which makes your gotcha about my talking about chattel slavery straight up wack.

“We” don’t “need” to do shit. People should do the stuff that’s in their power and that they think is worth doing.

This may have sounded good to you, but it’s meaningless. Nobody’s “jumping on the bandwagon,” that’s a content-free snark.

That’s what they’re doing: they’re working on racism in one small way by removing a symbol of racism from their home. What are you doing?

Why “however”? That’s exactly what I said.

My apologies @Riemann , I lost track of the argument, and thought you had been on the same side as this post:

Or we could understand the difference between honoring a slave owner in our own country with a modern organization bearing his name and some ancient philosophers and monarchs. The Audubon Society is a private organization representing the interests of bird conservation and operates as a non-profit organization in the US It was not founded by John Jay Audubon, or even while he was alive. They have an interest in their own reputation and can change the name if they feel it is in the best interest of the organization. I personally feel it is in the best interest of the organization to not continue using a name that honors a slave owner.

The enslaved Black people are excluded from “everyone” and “people”? Because I’m damn sure they realized before 1776.

To real patriots, “people” didn’t exist until the founding fathers created them.

These three options are far from mutually exclusive. Whether you want to or not, you ARE warning present-day immoral people of the possible desecration of their legacies by renaming and removing statues in the honor of those we no longer approve of. Punishing the dead seems to me a little silly, but if you think you’re doing something noble by punishing someone who is beyond caring, knock yourself out.

One thing that’s being lost here, in my view, is the distinction between honoring people with statues and other memorials to them, including geographical areas named for them, and recording their lives in history. People often accuse those who want the statues removed of obliterating history, but I think that’s offensive nonsense. I want the history to be meticulously recorded and preserved. I want to know exactly what slave owners did and didn’t do–it’s just that I don’t wish for them to be memorialized with heroic statues and portraits that lionize their lives and deeds.

They aren’t mutually exclusive. But i don’t believe the primary motivation for changing the name of the Audubon society is to punish Audubon, nor to put people on notice that they shouldn’t do abhorrent things because it puts their legacy at risk. I think the motive is that the society doesn’t want to be associated with a slave owner who started a run on killing pretty birds. I think they fear that the name will discourage Black people, today, from joining the society. And that the man doesn’t represent the ideals they want to promote.

And frankly, the Audubon society has evolved. When it was more about “how many exotic birds can you find?” And less about conservation of birds, Audubon was a better representative for it.