Washington DC named while George Washington was alive and President - were people fine with that?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@JRDelirious

As to the naming convention, two things the Federal Government absolutely bans from honoring living people are postage stamps and currency. At other levels and in other areas of interest, there are various practices depending on who’s running the show… [emphasis added]

As a general rule, yes, but not “absolutely.” All three of these gentlemen are still alive: http://www.edsmart.com/stamps/images/heroes.jpg

You can also get stamps custom-made with pictures of living people (yourself, if you like) from stamps.com.

[EdwardLost]

@Marley23

T
It’s a Spanish word, and I think the Spanish had a low opinion of Columbus by the time the area was first explored even though he sailed under the Spanish flag.

According to a book a read recently (the title of which slips my mind), Columbus was not even recognized as the discoverer of America until sometime in the 1700’s when folks began to go through the old documents. Revolutionary era Americans latched on to their “new” discoverer as something of a patriotic gesture.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@EdwardLost

According to a book a read recently (the title of which slips my mind), Columbus was not even recognized as the discoverer of America until sometime in the 1700’s when folks began to go through the old documents. Revolutionary era Americans latched on to their “new” discoverer as something of a patriotic gesture.

I don’t think this is quite the right interpretation. Shape of the World: The Mapping and Discovery of the Earth, by Simon Berthon and Andrew Robinson talks about the map made by Martin Waldseemϋller, who named America after Amerigo Vespucci.

In 1507, Waldseemϋller … decided that his great map should honor Vespucci above all. It was an error he lived to regret and he later tried to call the world’s attention to his realization that the honors should instead go to Columbus.

Educated people, therefore, knew very well that Columbus had been the first explorer. They also understood that he never set foot on the continent of North America. That honor went to John Cabot (Giovanni Caboto), an Italian who was sailing for England. That didn’t fit well with the story that they wanted to tell.

Vespucci was also not a good candidate, because he never went to North America either and there was always doubt about how truthful any of his traveling tales were. (Though they are now thought to be fairly soundly based.)

People in the colonies, looking for an identity, settled on Columbus because all the subsequent voyages were made possible by his discoveries. This Columbus in History page, based mostly on Michael Kammen’s Mystic Chords of Memory, gives a nice summary.

So, yes, people deliberately latched onto Columbus as a patriotic gesture, but probaby not because they had forgotten about him but because his particular story had not been an important one previously.

[Noel_Prosequi]

@Colibri

That’s a pretty recent convention. As has been pointed out, in antiquity and even 200 years ago it was common to name cities and other things after living people. Knoxville, Tennessee was named in 1786 for General Henry Knox, later first Secretary of War, some 20 years before Knox died. The town of Monroe, New York, was named in 1818 for the president at the time, James Monroe, who didn’t die until 1831. I’m sure that hundreds of other examples could easily be found.

The content of the OP tacitly assumed the existence of the convention. Guinastasia (post #2) said something that was capable of interpretation as casting doubt on the existence even in the present day of such a convention (by asking why it would be the “decent thing” to wait for a few years).

For that reason, I responded with my understanding of the convention and the reasons for it, and questioned (because of what Guin had said) whether I may have misunderstood its applicability in America. I was aware of various modern habits like naming capital ships after living presidents (Reagan, Bush) and wasn’t sure if I had wrongly assumed that a convention I thought was universal was not observed in the US or whether the capital ships thing was just an exception to the rule, or whether retired presidents were given a special exemption, etc.

I have no doubt the convention is a modern one. I am sure we are all aware of the patron flattery that went on in naming things in 17 and 18C. My state (Queensland) is named after the then living Queen Victoria, and most of my country’s major cities are named after some functionary or other who was alive at the time.

My question was really devoted to asking (given Guin’s comment) whether the modern convention applied in America at all.

And the answer seems to be … sort of, and sometimes.

[suranyi]

@Noel_Prosequi

The content of the OP tacitly assumed the existence of the convention. Guinastasia (post #2) said something that was capable of interpretation as casting doubt on the existence even in the present day of such a convention (by asking why it would be the “decent thing” to wait for a few years).

For that reason, I responded with my understanding of the convention and the reasons for it, and questioned (because of what Guin had said) whether I may have misunderstood its applicability in America. I was aware of various modern habits like naming capital ships after living presidents (Reagan, Bush) and wasn’t sure if I had wrongly assumed that a convention I thought was universal was not observed in the US or whether the capital ships thing was just an exception to the rule, or whether retired presidents were given a special exemption, etc.

I have no doubt the convention is a modern one. I am sure we are all aware of the patron flattery that went on in naming things in 17 and 18C. My state (Queensland) is named after the then living Queen Victoria, and most of my country’s major cities are named after some functionary or other who was alive at the time.

My question was really devoted to asking (given Guin’s comment) whether the modern convention applied in America at all.

And the answer seems to be … sort of, and sometimes.

Pretty much. In recent years, for example, the San Jose Airport has been renamed for Norm Mineta, and the Houston Airport has been renamed for George H. W. Bush, and both are very much alive.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Little_Nemo

“You’re probably just going to make fun of my second suggestion, Georgia, also aren’t you?”

Maybe they should have named it Marthasville, after the older woman who supported him, and made it possible for him to do such things as serve as Commander in Chief without taking any salary, and serve two terms as President at a very low salary (without even a White House to live in).

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Maybe they should have named it Marthasville, after the older woman who supported him, and made it possible for him to do such things as serve as Commander in Chief without taking any salary, and serve two terms as President at a very low salary (without even a White House to live in).

She already has a vineyard…isn’t it enough?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

One of my favorite things named after the first President: George, Washington - Wikipedia

[VernWinterbottom]

@Hypnagogic_Jerk

I think it’s usually the case, at least in Western societies, but there are exceptions. I have a friend who’s been teaching at the Gisèle Lalonde High School in Ottawa for a few years now, and Gisèle Lalonde still isn’t anywhere close to dying.

And in my town, Elizabeth I. Hastings was the principal of the Elizabeth I. Hastings Junior High School for a year before her retirement at the age of seventy. She had been principal of two elementary schools before being named the first principal of the new junior high school. The school committee named the school after her on her 69th birthday. (After her retirement, she was elected to the school committee and served 12 years.) We’ve named a few things in town after folks who were, or still are, alive.