Their is a movement in Austin Texas to change its name because the cities founder, Stephen Austin, was a slave supporter.
Do you think this is a good idea or even possible? Your talking a major headache in changing all those addresses. Do people even think about a cities namesake?
I can understand changing say a street name when its obvious like say “Confederate Avenue” and I understand some smaller towns have changed their name but I dont think its really plausible to change a big cities name.
Keep the name and say the town was named after an Air Force colonel?
let’s say we just add an unnecessary apostrophe and call it a day.
That’s “a movement”?
Name change is not gonna happen.
Heh, I mean it’s really up to the citizens there, but if you start changing names based upon the character of the person/thing that they are named for, we’re in for a lot of name changes.
The Virginias are named after Queen Elizabeth I (another slave supporter) who imprisoned and executed her own cousin for the crime of being Catholic and not only encouraged torture of Catholics, but actually ordered it.
New York is (probably not, but maybe) named for Ebraucus, a Briton king known for slaughtering Gauls and pillaging their villages.
Maryland is named after Henrietta Maria who had at least two people’s ears cut-off and nose split down the middle for insulting her.
The Carolinas are named for Charles I who imprisoned parliament and essentially became dictator and we all know how that ended.
Maine is likely ultimately named after the Aulerci Cenomani, a Gaulish tribe that likely practiced human sacrifice.
Texas is named after the Caddo who ambushed DeSoto’s expedition (hard to feel too sorry for them though.)
Louisiana is named after Louis XIV who revoked the Edict of Nantes and renewed the persecution of Protestants.
Kansas and Arkansas are named after the Kaw, a Dhegihan tribe that came to settle there after forcibly evicting the Arikara among others.
California ultimately stretches its name back to the Islamic Caliphates and I don’t think we need to get into their atrocities because it could spark a completely different discussion, but suffice it to say they were not saints.
Mexico/New Mexico was named for the Aztec rulers who were notorious for their human sacrifice.
I mean shoot, America itself is named after Amerigo Vespucci who was involved in capturing slaves in the Caribbean.
This is all to say that I don’t have a dog in the Austin fight, but history is complicated and often bloody and filled with atrocities. Sometimes it’s best to just acknowledge the issue and then let it go.
I’m definitely on board for the name change, maybe it’ll confuse all the people moving here from California and they will go to San Antonio or something
NO. Good God!! This is EXACTLY the slippery slope that leftists scoffed at after the statue removals. You can’t pick and choose your slaveholders man. If we can rename Austin, what’s next, Washington DC? Washington State? Everything named after Jefferson? Tear down their memorials? Remember people for the good they did, not the bad they did and stop whitewashing history!
That makes no sense. Au’s not tin; it’s gold.
Great parody post. I mean, brilliant. You almost had me until you talked about “whitewashing” history.
[golf clap]
Calm down. Even if we decided to change all the names of states and cities named after slaveholders, it wouldn’t be “whitewashing history”. Nobody’s proposing that we do some kind of Orwellian eradication of all the earlier nomenclature from the history books or other historical information. Changing official nomenclature is not some kind of terrible assault on historical truth.
I personally don’t think there’s a pressing need to change Austin’s name and I doubt the proposal will be adopted, but I see no reason to get one’s panties in a bunch over it either way. Toponyms are reflections of current practice as well as embodiments of historical tradition, which is why official placenames typically exist within some legal framework allowing them to be changed. In the 20th and 21st century Americans have changed dozens of geographical names containing racial slurs, including words like “coon”, “squaw”, “redskin”, “chink”, “nigger”, etc. History has not been destroyed as a result.
That poster probably didn’t intend it this way, but the slipper slope argument does hold here in this sense: If this was an actual movement to change most names of cities in this manner, the Democrats could kiss the presidency goodbye for a generation.
Or an International Man of Mystery?
Maybe so, but that’s a different argument. The renaming still wouldn’t be erasing or eradicating past history in any way, although it might change future history in ways such as you suggest.
As an Austin resident, I want to see what the proposed new name is first. Although 90% likely it’ll be worse than “Austin.”
A lot of locals will be mad about having to change so many store names or organization names that have ‘Austin’ in their name.
Dude. The issue with Confederate memorials is that their purpose is to honor slaveholding and treason, not to honor people who just happened to be slaveholders or traitors. They were mostly erected to remind blacks to keep in their place during Jim Crow - to “whitewash history”, as you put it.
Stephen F. Austin’s place in history is primarily as a leader of Texas independence, not as a slaveholder, and that’s the reasoning that I would expect to prevail here. Besides, without an alternate name picked out, there’s not much for the petitioners to organize around.
It was briefly called Waterloo before it was changed to Austin.
Maybe a cryptic-looking symbol in lieu of a name? 
I think it should change names when/if enough people that live there want it to. No reason to stick to old names that the population doesn’t want. Right now we aren’t at that point. But yes, I also think it’s okay to judge people who want to stick to old offensive names (think of those town names that call for death to Jews or catching escaped slaves, etc.)