In Spanish it’s Ruisenor Bastardo… Bastard Nightingale
Reckoning with the Racist Past of Bird Names
- Thread starter UngulateNerd92
- Start date
- Status
I'm surprised that no attempt has been undertaken so far to make some English common bird names less, well, raunchy. The colloquial names of Rupicola sp., Paridae, Sula sp., Scolopax sp. or Gulosus aristotelis have unintentionally gotten me into trouble with censor bots more than once. Why English bird taxonomists / ornithologists seem to have their minds in the gutter all too often, in particular in comparison to their far more innocent non-avian colleagues, is beyond me...
Last edited:
In many cases, the naming would have pre-dated the more modern colloquial usage of these terms.
I will point out that the etymology of the terms are frequently different - the word "boob" was commonly used to refer to someone who is dumb (possibly derived from the Spanish slang term bobo, which means "stupid") - and the birds had a habbit of landing on ships and so were easily caught and eaten by passing sailors - hence being referred to as "dumb birds". The other more modern form of the word is a corruption of the word bubby, either derived from the German word bübbi or as a result of baby talk.
The word tit was commonly used to refer to something small - (eg titmouse, tomtit, and also used to refer to small horses. Probably from the Scandinavian (Icelandic tittr, Norwegian tita "a little bird"). The word was also used in Old English to refer to a teat or nipple. The modern usage of this term didn't happen until the early 20th century.
It is unfortunate that our language has changed to the point where these terms are now so commonly used in a sexual way - but language does change and so it may well be time to rename these birds as well, even though they are arguably far less problematic than some of the more troublesome names discussed here.
iloveyourzoos
Well-Known Member
Here on zoochat, we're often implored to "listen to the experts" when it comes to conservation, husbandry, taxonomy, etc...
So why not listen to the experts when it comes to social injustice too? And it seems to me that those who have experienced those injustices their whole lives -- and over multiple generations -- are indeed the experts. If they say that the names are a barrier -- whether that be individual names of particularly bad historical figures, or the entire racist/ sexist/ imperialist naming schema as a whole -- then why not defer to them on this, their field of expertise?
Indeed, I wonder if the insistence on not deferring is itself a part of the larger problem. We know that science, and conservation, and zookeeping are all fields that share in the same troubled past that these bird names do (as does nearly everything else in our societies, of course). So if we want -- and need -- allies for conservation, then why not start with a show of good faith?
This seems like it would be an even easier decision for anyone who believes that the names are "trivial" or "tilting at windmills". After all, isn't the first rule of negotiation to give in on things you don't care about as much, to build good will towards the things you really do care about? And doesn't the refusal to give up the old-white-guy names send a signal that those names, and the collective history that they represent, are actually an important part of your current project, rather than a trivial part of the past?
At which point, the title of this thread (Reckoning with the Racist Past of Bird Names) really does begin to take us into reckoning with the racist Present of science, of conservation, of social responsibility.
You and I might feel there is a huge break between the old science that wanted to name all the animals and the new science that wants to conserve all the animals. But if it looks to others like we're clinging to those old-white-guy names, then we may need to ask ourselves how much of a break there really was. Or if there's actually been one at all.
It's well and good to say we're in a crisis and we need immediate action (sentiments that I agree with, by the way). But since that's the case, why not listen to communities who have been in crisis for centuries, to learn how they survived, and what they recommend. People who can see how the "ecosystems" of power and knowledge and oppression are intertwined in ways that may not be as obvious to those who haven't had that experience. People whose pain has been caused by some of the very same factors that have caused our climate predicament and our extinction predicament.
Yes, we are in an urgent ecological crisis. And we're going to be in one for a long time. I doubt that any of us on these forums would dream of discouraging a young child from pursuing a career in science or conservation, just because we have a crisis now that they can't immediately fix. So why would we leave in place a set of naming conventions that have the same impact? What are we saying about ourselves and our priorities if we let that happen? What are we telling people about what conservation is? And who it is for? And who it is meant to benefit?
TLDR: There's an old saying that there is honor among thieves. Apparently there are honorifics among thieves too! If we want to convince marginalized communities that science and conservation have truly given up their prior thieving ways, perhaps dropping the thieving names is a place to start.
So why not listen to the experts when it comes to social injustice too? And it seems to me that those who have experienced those injustices their whole lives -- and over multiple generations -- are indeed the experts. If they say that the names are a barrier -- whether that be individual names of particularly bad historical figures, or the entire racist/ sexist/ imperialist naming schema as a whole -- then why not defer to them on this, their field of expertise?
Indeed, I wonder if the insistence on not deferring is itself a part of the larger problem. We know that science, and conservation, and zookeeping are all fields that share in the same troubled past that these bird names do (as does nearly everything else in our societies, of course). So if we want -- and need -- allies for conservation, then why not start with a show of good faith?
This seems like it would be an even easier decision for anyone who believes that the names are "trivial" or "tilting at windmills". After all, isn't the first rule of negotiation to give in on things you don't care about as much, to build good will towards the things you really do care about? And doesn't the refusal to give up the old-white-guy names send a signal that those names, and the collective history that they represent, are actually an important part of your current project, rather than a trivial part of the past?
At which point, the title of this thread (Reckoning with the Racist Past of Bird Names) really does begin to take us into reckoning with the racist Present of science, of conservation, of social responsibility.
You and I might feel there is a huge break between the old science that wanted to name all the animals and the new science that wants to conserve all the animals. But if it looks to others like we're clinging to those old-white-guy names, then we may need to ask ourselves how much of a break there really was. Or if there's actually been one at all.
It's well and good to say we're in a crisis and we need immediate action (sentiments that I agree with, by the way). But since that's the case, why not listen to communities who have been in crisis for centuries, to learn how they survived, and what they recommend. People who can see how the "ecosystems" of power and knowledge and oppression are intertwined in ways that may not be as obvious to those who haven't had that experience. People whose pain has been caused by some of the very same factors that have caused our climate predicament and our extinction predicament.
Yes, we are in an urgent ecological crisis. And we're going to be in one for a long time. I doubt that any of us on these forums would dream of discouraging a young child from pursuing a career in science or conservation, just because we have a crisis now that they can't immediately fix. So why would we leave in place a set of naming conventions that have the same impact? What are we saying about ourselves and our priorities if we let that happen? What are we telling people about what conservation is? And who it is for? And who it is meant to benefit?
TLDR: There's an old saying that there is honor among thieves. Apparently there are honorifics among thieves too! If we want to convince marginalized communities that science and conservation have truly given up their prior thieving ways, perhaps dropping the thieving names is a place to start.
Historically, changes of names dictated by (so-called) authorities have not always worked as intended, if they worked at at all.
If there's an animal that could really benefit from a change of name, then it's Anophtalmus hitleri, whose population is directly threatened by poachers due to that silly name.
Sciency Words: Anophthalmus hitleri
If there's an animal that could really benefit from a change of name, then it's Anophtalmus hitleri, whose population is directly threatened by poachers due to that silly name.
Sciency Words: Anophthalmus hitleri
Last edited by a moderator:
I am booked for a trip to Uganda next year with an African-owned and run tour company. One thing I noticed is that in their material they use "old" names which my recently published bird guide (written and published by "white guys" - no idea how old) uses many new and presumably assumed to be less-offensive names.
At the end of the day names are simply a handle used to communicate what we see with each other. If people want to change names that is fine by me but frankly leave me out of it, being old I've got more important things to do before I finally shuffle off.
At the end of the day names are simply a handle used to communicate what we see with each other. If people want to change names that is fine by me but frankly leave me out of it, being old I've got more important things to do before I finally shuffle off.
iloveyourzoos
Well-Known Member
Completely agree!
Very true. And in fairness, a lot of those historical name changes didn't necessarily have justice as their goal.
Of course, unlike with the birds, finding a suitably accurate and descriptive substitute may not be so simple. After all, the distinguishing factors that we're pointing to may not be as pleasant as perching, singing, or soaring. Still, if it's more helpful to use descriptors like ego-maniacal imperialists or taxonomical narcissists to describe people who name things after themselves -- or groveling sycophants for someone who names things after others -- then I'm up for that!
Last edited by a moderator:
Regarding these words as 'offensive' is mostly limited to American culture. It is strange when an American tells that Africans should rename the country of Niger, the river Niger or the bird called Negrofinch.
And yes, Americans pushing people from other countries to stop using some words – is cultural imperialism.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a thing called "folk etymology" - whereby people armed with a bit of knowledge (often incomplete) misunderstand the true etymology of a word and thus come to conclusions which range from inadequate to outright wrong.
It is possible that the country Niger had its spelling incorrectly mistranslated (or geographically misplaced) and should actually be Nigir - derived from the wadi Gir (in Algeria) and the "Lower Gir" ("Ni-Gir") to the south. The fact that influence from the latin niger ("black") possibly influenced modern spelling just confuses and compounds the issues.
Personally, I don't think it is anyone's place to tell a country what they should call themselves. Any sovereign nation - and more importantly - the population of that nation - have the right to name themselves what they like - or change it if they no longer like the name they had been using.
There's plenty of cases of countries changing their names over the years - often to remove the imperialist history that they no longer ascribe to. But it is entirely up to the population of that country to make that determination - and other countries should not be dictating to them based on their own guilt or insecurities.
On a more general note - I've found myself having to put a lot of effort into maintaining this thread recently due to some problematic posts - and so I've decided to close it.
- Status