Sherman R. Frederick/Properly Subversive
I am not a bird watcher. I am a human watcher and that brings me to the same place today: Offensive Bird Names. The American Ornithological Society – and I promise you I am not making this up – has announced that it will rename all species of birds honoring people.
Why? The New York Times explained it this way:
Bird names derived from people can be harmful, exclusive and detract from “the focus, appreciation or consideration of the birds themselves.” For example, the Audubon Shearwater will drop “Audubon” because John Janes Audubon was a slave owner and opposed abolition. And the Scott’s Oriole will drop “Scott” because U.S. Civil War general Winfield Scott was in charge of the Army’s 1838 relocation of indigenous peoples, commonly known as the “Trail of Tears.”
Marin has a lot of birds. People watch them. And, because Marin is ahead of the curve on all cultural sensitivities, we should – nay, we must! – take the lead in making bird names more sensitive and inclusive.
For example, Marin’s sky is full of Finches. One of them is called, I am sorry to report, the House Finch. This reminds us that many of our residents in Marin, through no real fault of their own, don’t have a house. They live in parks like, well, finches. Imagine how they must feel when they look into the trees and see a House Finch. It’s a terrible injustice.
Or what about the White Crowned Sparrow. You can find them all over the place, especially in fast food parking lots pecking at scraps of fast-food fries. If you look closely, you will note that their heads are not white. They are striped white and black. Why do we pay namesake tribute to the white and ignore the black on their little heads? Equity, alert!
The County Commission should appoint a citizen group to work closely with the American Ornithological Society in this worthy endeavor.
House Finch? Seriously, in this day and age? C’mon, man!
SHOCKER
Forty-three thousand dollars.
That’s what the Marin County Board of Supervisors paid Polco/National Research Center to find out that Marin-ers value the natural environment, desire to stay vigilant in disaster preparedness and want to provide housing for all.
We needed to pay money to find that out? I wonder, did it come as a shock to any of the county supervisors?
SAVING REDWOODS
This seems counter-intuitive to me. Environmental groups are suing the National Park Service for as the San Francisco Chronicle reports “embarking upon a colossal effort to replant six groves of giant sequoias that burned in wildfires in California’s southern Sierra Nevada, an endeavor that park officials say is necessary to ensure a future for the climate-threatened trees.”
Conservation groups contend the charred landscape is “wilderness” and therefore humans may not intervene. I don’t know, does this seem weird to you, too?
ONE MORE THING
– The “Paradox of Tolerance” is solved if you think of tolerance not as an expectation, but as a contract. Those who do not abide by the contract are not protected by it.
That’ll do for today. Until next week, avoid soreheads, laugh a little and always question authority.
“Properly Subversive” is written by Sherman R. Frederick you can reach him by email at shermfrederick@gmail.com.)
NYT 3/15/23: The National Audubon Society announced on Wednesday that its board of directors had voted to retain the organization’s name despite pressure to end its association with John James Audubon, the 19th-century naturalist and illustrator who enslaved people, drawing backlash from fellow bird groups that have already changed their names.
I believe it is the name the “Audubon’s shearwater (Puffinus lherminieri)” that Mr. Frederick is explaining will be changed to no longer include reference to John James Audubon and not of the society’s name.
The first reply to this piece references the NYT about the National Audubon Society itself and its decision to keep their original name, but many chapters of the Audubon Society as individual entities, are opting to drop Audubon’s name from their titles, such as our local “Golden Gate Audubon Society”, that was renamed the “Golden Gate Bird Alliance” in an effort to sever its ties to John James Audubon.
Erasing names from history doesn’t promote awareness and change, it promotes ignorance and an idea that present day social norms and minds can be changed without awareness and without making a conscious effort to be better than our predecessors.
I liken their way of thinking to the idea of a person burning their birth certificate and family photos and then declaring that they have no parents, doing this because they are ashamed that their parents weren’t as educated, socially evolved and compassionate to others as they want themselves to be perceived. They should be proud that their way of thinking and behavior has evolved.
This “retro-sensitivity” cancel culture is ludicrous. It’s a waste of time, money, and energy that could be put towards meaningful progress. Vanity is ugly.