AOU-NACC Proposals 2019 (1 Viewer)

James Jobling said:

As it was foretold.......
Never mind the apparently innocent McCown, I am surprised that some fastidious soul has not protested against the use of 'Longspur,' with its obvious connotations of the whip-wielding, jack-booted and spurred overseer! It is absurd that we should be expected to deny our history and cultural heritage to placate a vociferous and readily offended minority. Please do not let the inmates take over the asylum.

Click to expand...

And we're back with the catastrophising... and an interesting perspective on where 'denial' is situated in this narrative.

James Jobling said:

..., I am surprised that some fastidious soul has not protested against the use of 'Longspur,' ....

Click to expand...

But does anyone call it 'Longspur,'? How do they pronounce the comma? :eek!: :brains:

Alexjh1 said:

I'm helping with a small part of the back research to this proposal, making a catalogue of who exactly the people are that have birds named after them - it's a big task and we're only beginning to scratch the surface, but even so far the list includes:

Murderers - most often of indiginous people
Racists
Slave owners
Antisemites
Phrenologists
Anti-vaccination advocates
Pro-Colonialism Advocates
Colonialist Soldiers
Colonialist Missionaries
Colonialist Governers
Functionally State-sponsored Human Traffickers
People guilty of what would now be considered Crimes Against Humanity and/or War Crimes
Grave Robbers
A guy who allegedly bought a girl and forced people to eat her so he could watch
Kidnappers
Rapists
A member of a family whose nobility started with a guy who weaponised smallpox against Indiginous people
A guy who supported a local warlord
An associate of Custer
A man who drove one of his servants to suicide
Plagiarists

Now in fairness, we are also finding a few really genuinely cool people in there too, but that doesn't balance out the fact that there are a lot of terrible people - including some big names in the field - who if you looked at their rap sheet, you'd definitely want in prison. Should be be "honoring" these people?

Click to expand...

You know, it would be nice to actually see some names applied to these and the actual links. Some of these look very much like broad stroke categorizations, especially "guy who knew Custer" and "Guy related to folks who used small pox".

James Jobling said:

As it was foretold.......
Never mind the apparently innocent McCown, I am surprised that some fastidious soul has not protested against the use of 'Longspur,' with its obvious connotations of the whip-wielding, jack-booted and spurred overseer! It is absurd that we should be expected to deny our history and cultural heritage to placate a vociferous and readily offended minority. Please do not let the inmates take over the asylum.

Click to expand...

James, Des,
I was beggining to think I was the only person left in the real World, welcome!

James, Des and Andy, me too or can I not say that these days?

You know...2020 is just a complete trashfire of the year. We've become so polarized that there is no middle ground.

I feel like I am the voice of reason online in various places, where I am taking a stance of "Hey, lets stop and consider if some of the names are problematic and focus on those. Meanwhile one side is arguing that names and the English language are sacrosant and how dare we think of naming anything for "political correctness".

Meanwhile the other side is RENAME EVERYTHING NOW AND IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS YOU ARE A RACIST. I seriously just read a twitter post saying we need to get rid of ALL common names and just use indigenous language names, because even calling something a name in English is apparently colonialism.

Mysticete said:

I seriously just read a twitter post saying we need to get rid of ALL common names and just use indigenous language names, because even calling something a name in English is apparently colonialism.

Click to expand...

Was the post in English? If yes, he's hoisted himself on his own petard [alert! French word!!!] :-O


Of course in England, English is indigenous . . . . or is it??? (must dig out my palaeolithic Neanderthal language dictionary and start learning it) o

My biggest issue with this current obsession with getting rid of all patronyms is that the general sentiment is that the idea of commemorating any western scientist is bad, which in turn feeds into a narrative that science itself is colonial, and that perhaps it and its findings can be disregarded.

Mysticete said:

You know, it would be nice to actually see some names applied to these and the actual links. Some of these look very much like broad stroke categorizations, especially "guy who knew Custer" and "Guy related to folks who used small pox".

Click to expand...

I agree that judging a person by what a family member has done seems rather ridiculous. It is like blaming Mary Trump for what her uncle is doing.

Niels

andrew147 said:

But who gets to decide what is meaningful?

That the voices of certain demographics are heard (and considered meaningful), while others are disempowered, is key to this whole discussion.

Incredible, positive social change is happening around us right now and the use of language is a significant part of that. Surely discussing dubious bird nomenclature on this forum is a small but helpful contribution - and it doesn't preclude action in other areas.

Click to expand...

Have you ever actually heard any number of minority people talk about bird names as a problem?

Just to mention one story I have heard from an African American: being stopped by a police person, having both hands visible on the steering wheel and having to beg the police person to not shoot him on the spot. Those are the kind of issues that to me are much more important than bird names at this time. Once that kind of problems as well as those with underpayment and lack of access to jobs are solved, then we can move to next level.

Niels

njlarsen said:

Have you ever actually heard any number of minority people talk about bird names as a problem?

Just to mention one story I have heard from an African American: being stopped by a police person, having both hands visible on the steering wheel and having to beg the police person to not shoot him on the spot. Those are the kind of issues that to me are much more important than bird names at this time. Once that kind of problems as well as those with underpayment and lack of access to jobs are solved, then we can move to next level.

Niels

Click to expand...

Totally true, this is all being driven by the looney left. Perhaps we need a survey at the next BLM march, to see who has even heard of McCown et al.

Slightly different with a word that is simply offensive but even then, the group/s affected, may not even be aware of e.g Hottentot Teal?

I know of only one, clear cut case whet a name change is unquestionably required and it's a butterly in Asia, common name 'The N****'' which obviously can't stand and is, being replaced but I still have books where the name is used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orsotriaena_medus

andyadcock said:

Totally true, this is all being driven by the looney left. Perhaps we need a survey at the next BLM march, to see who has even heard of McCown et al.

Slightly different with a word that is simply offensive but even then, the group/s affected, may not even be aware of e.g Hottentot Teal?

I know of only one, clear cut case whet a name change is unquestionably required and it's a butterly in Asia, common name 'The N****'' which obviously can't stand and is, being replaced but I still have books where the name is used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orsotriaena_medus

Click to expand...

Because it's all about you isn't it?

What you've heard of, what matters to you, what your political views are, your idea of what is and is not "real".

Maybe you should go along to a BLM demo - try understanding how life is for people whose societal position isn't constantly validated by Western power structures. Yep, that's the majority of people, not the comfortable minority who get to decide what's important.

andrew147 said:

Because it's all about you isn't it?

What you've heard of, what matters to you, what your political views are, your idea of what is and is not "real".

Maybe you should go along to a BLM demo - try understanding how life is for people whose societal position isn't constantly validated by Western power structures. Yep, that's the majority of people, not the comfortable minority who get to decide what's important.

Click to expand...

You mean people like you when you speak of deciding what's important?

I said it before and I'll say it again, despite Liberal politics being rejected, World over, people like you, seem to get their way more often than not.

You continually come up with new ways to find how the white man has oppressed or disrepected people, people are sick of it and for the record, the most disavantaged and low achieving group in the UK? White, working class males.

And yes, of course 'what I've heard of' matters to me, as it shapes the thought process of every, single person. Give me another example then such as the one I quoted above, which is so patently offensive, across the board and not to a miniscule minority of die hard liberals?

Here's a quote for you which clearly, explains how the real World, perceive you and your kind.

'Mathew Goodwin ‘Why Labour lost the Election’.

‘A large number of voters left behind, not just economically which is where the Left goes wrong, they can only view this in terms of economics but actually they felt left behind in terms of their values. They felt there had been a new set of culturally, socially liberal values that they neither shared nor respected, that were now being imposed on them by political elites in the media and they felt they couldn’t relate to those values whether it be strong support for either the EU or large scale migration and all the new identity politics’.

Labour were warned in this study that they were at risk from ‘social conservatism’, in their arrogance, they ignored the warning.

‘The left has lost the first ‘culture war’

andyadcock said:

You mean people like you when you speak of deciding what's important?

I said it before and I'll say it again, despite Liberal politics being rejected, World over, people like you, seem to get their way more often than not.

You continually come up with new ways to find how the white man has oppressed or disrepected people, people are sick of it and for the record, the most disavantaged and low achieving group in the UK? White, working class males.

And yes, of course 'what I've heard of' matters to me, as it shapes the thought process of every, single person. Give me another example then such as the one I quoted above, which is so patently offensive, across the board and not to a miniscule minority of die hard liberals?

Here's a quote for you which clearly, explains how the real World, perceive you and your kind.

'Mathew Goodwin ‘Why Labour lost the Election’.

‘A large number of voters left behind, not just economically which is where the Left goes wrong, they can only view this in terms of economics but actually they felt left behind in terms of their values. They felt there had been a new set of culturally, socially liberal values that they neither shared nor respected, that were now being imposed on them by political elites in the media and they felt they couldn’t relate to those values whether it be strong support for either the EU or large scale migration and all the new identity politics’.

Labour were warned in this study that they were at risk from ‘social conservatism’, in their arrogance, they ignored the warning.

‘The left has lost the first ‘culture war’

Click to expand...

Yes, I know all that already and actually agree with some of it.

You don't engage with what I'm saying - instead you just respond generically, like you're having some phantom argument with Jeremy Corbyn.

Twopence:

I started learning scientific names for South American birds as I thought it would help communication with ornithologists there. Then I discovered the scientific names were changing more rapidly than the common (English language) ones so I stopped bothering. This proposal, to remove patronyms, will make the common names just as labile so maybe I shouldn't bother learning them either...

Re: nasty people in the past. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

andrew147 said:

Yes, I know all that already and actually agree with some of it.

You don't engage with what I'm saying - instead you just respond generically, like you're having some phantom argument with Jeremy Corbyn.

Click to expand...

Isn't that what we have though?

You espouse a set of ideas and values to which I'm diametrically opposed on SOME, levels. I'm all for social justice but some things matter more than others, bird names are very low down the list and the reasons for changing them, in many cases, are weak.

I've seen third World poverty, up close and personal so I find the kind of discussions we're having here, to be superfluous, tokenistic and self indulgent. If you asked me to sign a petition to go and airlift all the kids from the Yemen, I'd sign it in a hearbeat, this is the stuff that matters.

What I don't like, is indulgent, middle class liberals, who tell me why I should accept wholesale, unchecked, immigration, when, in the majority of cases, they are living well away from the problematic side of this policy. Their policies are idealistic, simplistic and unrealistic.

I know that little ramble wasn't on topic but it's basically the same thing happening in birding. If people want social justice, changing bird names is not the place to start. The BLM campaign is in great danger of losing a lot of the public sympathy it first garnered, with it's increasing demands, the vandalism that saw statues torn down and some of the unsavoury comments which have recently been attributed to some high profile members. BLM lapel badges were glaringly absent from the presenters suits during coverage of various football matches over the last few days, for the same reasons.

Politics in the UK has become so polarised, some issues are spilling over in to areas where they shouldn't be seen and the country is crying out for someone to claim the centre ground.

I'll finally summarise my position on nomenclature....

1. By all means, change eponyms which refer to genuinely, unsavoury characters, not because someones uncle made a racist statement a hundred years ago.

2. Use foreign names where justifiable but translate in to English, names should mean something, they should impart some idea of the species habits or appearance. I'm ok with 'Bird that steals my chickens at night' but not in Aramaic!

3. I don't mind the changing of names which are clearly, potentially offensive. If the leader of a group of people makes an approach then do it, as is currently case with the Washington Redskins, American football team but it should not be for a person, unnafected themselves, to take umbrage on somene elses behalf. There's a principle in law known as 'locus standi' which means that people cannot get involved in an action, which does not, directly affect them in person and it should be applied here.

andyadcock said:

Isn't that what we have though?

You espouse a set of ideas and values to which I'm diametrically opposed on SOME, levels. I'm all for social justice but some things matter more than others, bird names are very low down the list and the reasons for changing them, in many cases, are weak.

I've seen third World poverty, up close and personal so I find the kind of discussions we're having here, to be superfluous, tokenistic and self indulgent. If you asked me to sign a petition to go and airlift all the kids from the Yemen, I'd sign it in a hearbeat, this is the stuff that matters.

What I don't like, is indulgent, middle class liberals, who tell me why I should accept wholesale, unchecked, immigration, when, in the majority of cases, they are living well away from the problematic side of this policy. Their policies are idealistic, simplistic and unrealistic.

I know that little ramble wasn't on topic but it's basically the same thing happening in birding. If people want social justice, changing bird names is not the place to start. The BLM campaign is in great danger of losing a lot of the public sympathy it first garnered, with it's increasing demands, the vandalism that saw statues torn down and some of the unsavoury comments which have recently been attributed to some high profile members. BLM lappel badges were glaringly absent from the presenters suits during coverage of various football matches over the last few days, for the same reasons.

Politics in the UK has become so polarised, some issues are spilling over in to areas where they shouldn't be seen and the country is crying out for someone to claim the centre ground.

I'll finally summarise my position on nomenclature....

1. By all means, change eponyms which refer to genuinely, unsavoury characters, not because someones uncle made a racist statement a hundred years ago.

2. Use foreign names where justifiable but translate in to English, names should mean something, they should impart some idea of the species habits or appearance. I'm ok with 'Bird that steals my chickens at night' but not in Aramaic!

3. I don't mind the changing of names which are clearly, potentially offensive. If the leader of a group of people makes an approach then do it, as is currently case with the Washington Redskins but it should not be for a person in the UK or US to take umbrage on somene elses behalf. There's a principle in law known as 'locus standi' which means that people cannot get involved in an action, which does not, directly affect them in person and it should be applied here.

Click to expand...

1. Thanks for writing an erudite and (mostly) polite post.

2. I don't think that changing bird names is the place to start either but it is certainly the only part of the discussion relevant to the present forum!

3. Understand that not everyone who opposes some of your ideas can be characterised as "middle class", "liberal", "you and your kind" or "loony" - and that there is no reason to be pejorative anyway. None of those words describe who I am at all - and I don't think you'd like to be characterised in an equivalent manner.

Mysticete said:

You know, it would be nice to actually see some names applied to these and the actual links. Some of these look very much like broad stroke categorizations, especially "guy who knew Custer" and "Guy related to folks who used small pox".

Click to expand...

That's fair, but we are trying to be thorough here, there are literally hundreds of these people and many of them require trawling through obscure texts to get an idea of what they were doing behind the white-washed version that tends to be presented.

We are looking at how we might release the whole lot when we are finished, but a few select lowlights:

James Sligo Jameson (eponyms include Jameson's Wattle-eye, Antpecker, Firefinch)
Deeply involved with Stanley in Central Africa, helped from up colonialism particularly in Leopold II's Congo Free State - a regime responsible for around 13 million deaths.

John Kirk Townsend (eponyms include Solitaire and Warbler)
Robbed indigious graves to he could send the skulls back to phrenologist Samuel G Morton, who wanted to develop scientific backing for white supremacy and manifest destiny.

Sir Geoffrey Francis Archer (eponyms including Buzzard, Lark, Ground Robin)
Pioneered using aircraft bombing to shoot rebels in Somliland. Suppresed local academics. Later got involved in the salt industry in India, which notedly lead to the Salt March later.

John James Audobon
Slave owner. Grave robber. Was also sending skulls of Indiginous people and Mexican soldiers to the same Samuel G Morton above.

William Clark (of Clark's Nutcracher)
Massive colonialist. "Ultimately responsible for dispossessing more Indians than perhaps any other American". Also a slaver and plantation owner.

2nd Conde de Fernandina (long unweildy name) (of Fernandina Flicker)
"One of the largest slave owners on the island" (Cuba)

Paul Neergard (of Neergard's Sunbird)
Member of a "migrant labour agency" which was essentially state sponsored human trafficking where Africans would be sent into gold mines with high mortality rates and impossible to escape contracts.

dnsallen said:

With such an extensive and far-reaching list of early 21st century views, are you sure you have looked hard enough at these cool people? What were their views on trans-gender people? Did they eat meat? What was their record on animal rights activism?

Click to expand...

I may note have. There are about 540 on the list so far, and that will probably rise - I don't have the time to read the complete biographies and works of every single one of them.

But you are being facetious anyway.

Would a lot of them be cool if you transposed them to modern times? Probably not. Did some of them push for positive progress in the world they lived in and not murder anyone, or colonialise anywhere or enslave anyone. Certainly. It's not an unreasonable bar.

Alexjh1 said:

John James Audobon
Slave owner. Grave robber. Was also sending skulls of Indiginous people and Mexican soldiers to the same Samuel G Morton above.

I may note have. There are about 540 on the list so far, and that will probably rise - I don't have the time to read the complete biographies and works of every single one of them.

But you are being facetious anyway.

Would a lot of them be cool if you transposed them to modern times? Probably not. Did some of them push for positive progress in the world they lived in and not murder anyone, or colonialise anywhere or enslave anyone. Certainly. It's not an unreasonable bar.

Click to expand...

So thats the Audubon Society gone then...........

Regarding your last comment, you can switch this and try to understand that this was all done in the context of society as it was then which is basically what you're doing with your statement, in reverse.

I'm not defending any of them but humankind has moved on a lot in two-three hundred years and much of what happened then, wasn't seen as particulary awful.

A lot of the people being villified here, are actually remembered for humanitarion and philanthropic endeavours too. Edward Colston who just had his statue torn down in Bristol, UK, bequeathed large amounts of money to local charities upon his death, hence his statue. This latest movement will ignore that and see him remembered solely, as a slave trader, along with many others. In my view, each individual has to receive a balanced appraisal, some people were victims at their hands, others, beneficiaries.

I assume that you are aware that slavery was in use by Africans, a long time before Europeans arrived?

You cannot just remove parts of history, periodically, to suit the political flavour of the day.

andyadcock said:

So thats the Audubon Society gone then...........

Regarding your last comment, you can switch this and try to understand that this was all done in the context of society as it was then which is basically what you're doing with your statement, in reverse.

I'm not defending any of them but humankind has moved on a lot in two-three hundred years and much of what happened then, wasn't seen as particulary awful.

A lot of the people being villified here, are actually remembered for humanitarion and philanthropic endeavours too. Edward Colston who just had his statue torn down in Bristol, UK, bequeathed large amounts of money to local charities upon his death, hence his statue. This latest movement will ignore that and see him remembered solely, as a slave trader, along with many others. In my view, each individual has to receive a balanced appraisal, some people were victims at their hands, others, beneficiaries.

You cannot just remove parts of history, periodically, to suit the political flavour of the day.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between someone being in history and them being honoured. No one I know is reasoning that we try erase people from history, but a statue or an eponym is a an honouring.

To take an example of one I consider "cool" - Eleonara of Arborea after whom Eleonara's Falcon is named was a woman who became a judge and among her achievements enacted the world's first legal protections for raptors nests and made some big progressive strides towards fairer laws for women regarding inheritance and rape cases. Added bonus, the name isn't colonial because it's a personage relevant to the species' range.

Might she have been terrible in other ways? Quite possibly, but the difference is a question mark vs ignoring evidence we have.

As for the "it was a different time" argument, the yardstick is very simple - did they cause or endorse notable suffering? Suffering is a constant that an act can be measured against regardless of time.