FWIW, when I, as a non-Texan, hear “Austin,” I think of the city but never of the person it was named for. If the fact that it’s named after Stephen Austin bothers people, couldn’t they just “change” the name from “Austin (named after Stephen Austin)” to “Austin (just a name, not named after anyone in particular)”?
I think this is a good point. I see a distinction between honoring a person because of something they did that you find objectionable vs. honoring someone in spite of something they did that you find objectionable.
I dare the Americans who want to keep history intact - I’m serious, it’s a real dare - to REALLY keep history intact, and next 4th of July fly a British flag equal in size and position to your own flag. Hell, even just fly one that’s visible and prominent. Because history.
It was a much easier decision for King County, Washington to rename itself after Martin Luther King Jr. instead of William Rufus King, but tragically there’s no obvious other Austin to use that approach with.
What about all of those cities named after primarily Catholic Saints? San Luis Obispo, San Juan, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río Porciúncula? Or in Texas like San Antonio?
Doesn’t that (gasp) violate the separation of Church and State?
Off-topic nitpick: Mary Queen of Scots wasn’t imprisoned or executed for being Catholic. The former is because she was a threat to Elizabeth’s throne, and the latter is for plotting to kill her and take over and Queen herself.
It’s never as simple as saying that. The fact that one person, or a lot of people, see a distinction, doesn’t always mean the distinction is clear. Sometimes there can’t even BE a way to make it clear, because sometimes the “wrong” associations in people’s minds are unbreakable. There definitely are many people who (for perfectly good reasons) can’t ever receive or deserve public honour, despite the fact that they did something good - and it’s because, in just enough people’s minds, the wrong they did overshadows the right.
I don’t know about history, but a more pressing current issue might be to change the “Texas” part of the name. To join the secession of Cascadia, we already know that New Mexico has to swap places with Arizona. It should be relatively straightforward for Austin to come along too.
Frankly, matters like this have to come up against cost and convenience. Tearing down a statue is not really a big deal. Renaming a road is a bit inconvenient but it happens all the time. Renaming a whole goddamn city of a million people is a pretty big deal. It’s been done, but I wouldn’t want to do it if I could possibly avoid it.
Do people actually think about the guy Austin is named after, anyway?
…del río de la Porciúncula… The way you wrote it would mean that Porciúncula is the name of a river: it’s the chapel where the Franciscan Order was founded.
There is no doubt that New York was named after the then Duke of York, who was granted the captured colony.
Of course, the Duke of York was called that because he held the Duchy of York. The duchy is named for the city of York. The city of York is the Anglicized version of Jorvik. Which may be derived as you state. But the origin of the name does not change the historical fact that the state and city of New York were named after a specific Duke of York.
In comparison, it’s like saying the capital city of United States, Washington, is named after an Anglo-Saxon chief named Hwæsa, rather than the first president.
About half of everything you can imagine in the SF Bay Area (and a bit south) is named after Father Junipero Serra (we pronounce his first name “yu-NIP-er-o”). That’s an exaggeration, of course, but you see his name all over the place. Let’s just say that he is not known for being kind to the Native Americans. There is always talk, better characterized as low rumbling, of purging his name from things.
As one of the many curmudgeonly old farts close to being priced out of the city, I favor a name change because this ain’t Austin any more. When “Keep Austin Weird” became a trademarked business slogan, the battle was lost.
The U.S. had slavery. There is no way to get around that. There are also more slaves in the world today than there ever have been been in history. If someone wants to make an actual difference, they need to quit fucking around with quibbles and get up off their ass to help the slaves today. Changing city names or even tearing down statues does nothing of the sort.
The way you wrote it would mean that Porciúncula is the name of a river: it’s the chapel where the Franciscan Order was founded.