Not that I’m a cynic or anything…
If they pick some “great admirable person” to change the name to, isn’t it just a matter of time until we find out that that person has also been doing something bad?
Possibly. Another reason, among many, to take a long hard look at proposals for official name changes motivated by anti-bigotry arguments, in order to evaluate whether they’d actually be necessary and effective in achieving their aims.
But not a reason to shit one’s pants full of exclamation points in outrage and dismay at the very prospect of such proposals even being suggested.
The silliest part is that the worst-case nightmare scenario if we allow one city to change its name, then one day it might lead to another city changing its name. It’s a slippery slope!
I checked this Stephen F. Austin guy to see if he was really all that bad. And you know what? He wasn’t entirely in favor of slavery, since he wrote:
““I sometimes shudder at the consequences and think that a large part of America will be Santo Domingonized in 100, or 200 years. The idea of seeing such a country as this overrun by a slave population almost makes me weep. It is in vain to tell a North American that the white population will be destroyed some fifty or eighty years hence by the negroes, and that his daughters will be violated and Butchered by them.””
Why, what a charmer.
Don’t know if anyone’s shared this, but as usual, Steve Chapman has a pretty balanced take on the subject.
Sure, good idea.
But start at the roots, and rename America, first.
It is, after all, named for Amerigo Vespucci.
He not only supported slavery but owned several slaves himself.
THEN, rename Texas.
It is named for the Caddo and Hasinais Indian word for “friend”.
Unfortunately, these same Indians were virtually exterminated.
(population 1520 = 250000. population now = 6000)
Which is worse, Enslaving people or exterminating them?
JFC usually the dope is better than this. Shame on every last one of you (except BeeGee, who earns the solitary “actually did some fact-checking” merit badge for the thread), trusting a friggin’ Newscorp outlet to report accurately on culture war fodder.
Emphasis mine. The only question is whether the post was just misleading, or actively dishonest. From what I can tell, just misleading - the Post never made the (false) claim that their is a movement in Austin Texas to change its name because the cities founder, Stephen Austin, was a slave supporter.
Seriously, guys, stop falling for this shit. We’re supposed to be at least a little bit better than that. If you see any article that implies, “Look at what the crazy PC left is doing now”, you owe it to yourself and everyone around you to take 30 seconds to fact-check it before you repost it all over the place or accept it as a premise for further debate.
Which people? Who, exactly, is attempting to change the name of the city? Can you name one person who actually has come out and said, “I support this change”? At best, you’re nutpicking (because there is no movement to rename Austin, Texas); at worst, you’re arguing with ghosts (because, again, there is no movement to rename Austin, Texas). If only we knew who these hypothetical virtue-signaling people were, then we could push back against them. Alas, it is very hard for me to police people on my side who do not actually exist.
Like EVERYONE who has fallen for shit and should be ashamed? Seriously, mate, get a grip. Is there any real reason for your hysteria? This is the internet, it’s full of inaccurate nonsense and, believe it or not, what happens in Texas is not at the forefront of things I’d care enough about to fact check something that is posted online when I have no intention of relying on it for any purpose.
That’s true. What is New Orleans going to do? It’s named for the Emperor Aurelius who massacred up to 7000 striking mint workers and murdered the Emperor Gallienus. He was certainly a slave holder and may have been the guy who destroyed the Library of Alexandria.
I like the idea. Let’s change the names for historical figures who weren’t awful. Austin, Texas is now Bullock, Texas, for native actress Sandra Bullock. Or maybe Vaughan, Texas, for musician Stevie Ray Vaughan. Or maybe Austin, Texas, for wrestler Stone Cold Steve Austin.
No, wait…
Well, yeah, kinda. I would argue that, in general, if someone gets fooled by something they should have been suspicious of, they should feel at least a little bit of shame. That’s the emotion that inspires us not to be taken in again. I personally am a bit ashamed that I didn’t notice, and will try to be more careful in the future.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think it’s always your* fault if you get fooled. Someone can just be that good at tricking. And you’re not always at 100% all the time. And, even if you do mess up, I don’t think it makes you a bad person or anything. And, yes, there are things that are so unimportant that it doesn’t really matter.
But this was something from a less-than-reliable source. And one of the purposes of this board is to notice these fake stories and refute them. I personally have taken it upon myself to refute these “stupid SJW” stories. Yet I didn’t notice.
The reason I do this is because of this: Even if you don’t act on it, you still store that information in your head as true. And thus, when the next SJW story comes out, you’re just that much more likely to believe it.
We are in the middle of a sort of political disinformation war right now. I think it’s important to not let it continue.
*generic you
That works. Even the first name is the same, unlike with King County. Have the rededication ceremony with people holding “Austin 3:16” signs everywhere.
I can’t imagine they’d have to.
People wouldn’t be confused about where the “South Austin Hardware Store” (or whatever) was for a generation. At that point, they could change it or not. There are plenty of examples of location-based names that have persisted well after the place name officially changed.
As not a resident of Austin, I think we should let them decide what to call themselves. I’d probably vote against a similar thing in my hometown though, unless it were named after someone really vile, since I think there are better things to spend time and political energy on.
Mine was named after a Revolutionary War colonel who settled out here. He’s too obscure to have anyone write anything bad about him. He did kill quite a few Indians though, so that’s probably not a good thing, but such things were common at the time and to be fair they were generally shooting back.
Oddly, Orlando is known to have been named for a real person, but it isn’t known who he was. There are several theories, including that he was a Confederate soldier whose grave became a landmark that no longer exists, but there is no evidence for any of them. So we’re confused.
According to the Florida Historical Society, from a purported Seminole Wars casualty, not Confederate; and the name was first used for the settlement in 1857. But there are also other theories — Florida Frontiers - How did Orlando Get its Name? | Florida Historical Society
There are two different soldiers in two different theories.
People on a forum dedicated to fighting ignorance who cannot be bothered to double-check a culture war article that sounds silly on its face written by a newscorp article that doesn’t link to its one source? Absolutely. Y’know how your grandma sometimes posts really stupid, shitty fake news to facebook, and you facepalm? This entire thread is the rough equivalent of that. It shouldn’t exist. The whole thread should be the OP, and posts equivalent to BeeGee’s. Not two pages of people saying, “well, this is right/wrong because…” Because the thing in question did not happen. Hey, let’s have a long, tedious debate about that one SJW who blew up the Washington Monument because Washington owned slaves!
Everyone who took the premise of this thread at face value is the rough equivalent of that guy on facebook who shared the news article about the pope endorsing Donald Trump. Shame is absolutely the appropriate emotional response to that.
And we swore never to forget the Bowling Green Massacre!
Clearly, this is something for the people of Austin to decide.
But I question the rationale. Does the name of the city honor the name of the founder? If it supposed to, it’s not doing a very good job. I knew diddly-squat about the founder until I read the OP here. And now that I know, I don’t care. I suspect this is true for many Austin residents as well.