Reckoning with the Racist Past of Bird Names

[Vision]

It's already begun - in the UK recently people got mad at RSPB for illustrating female ducks as "smaller and more drab".

You're horribly oversimplifying this situation, and spinning it to a narrative that I don't even know why you're trying to defend at all. Someone incredibly involved in both the birding and feminism community noticed this mistake in an observation hut, and jokingly tweeted about this to the RSPB. Immediately, the RSPB responsibly made a statement to do something about it. Only after this happened, people got mad at her for advocating for a change (something that obviously resonated as problematic by a lot of female and feminist birders). She then used these hateful comments as a reason to make a public statement. Nobody in the feminist community ever got mad at the RSPB about this, the only ones that got upset are men claiming this change isn't important.

Either way, feminism or not, the decision is still absolutely a good decision, because there's no reason for female ducks to be illustrated smaller than males. They aren't noticeably smaller at all in real life, they're naturally less colourful and harder to identify, so being able to properly see the details is more important than with males, and males even look like them half the year. She never mentioned anything about ducks being illustrated as "more drab" than they actually are - you made that up.

Sorry for straying off-topic, but this comment was too ridiculous not to respond to. What exactly do we gain from making fun of feminists? Grow up and be an ally, instead of making fun of people trying to make the world a better place.

 

[birdsandbats]

You're horribly oversimplifying this situation, and spinning it to a narrative that I don't even know why you're trying to defend at all. Someone incredibly involved in both the birding and feminism community noticed this mistake in an observation hut, and jokingly tweeted about this to the RSPB. Immediately, the RSPB responsibly made a statement to do something about it. Only after this happened, people got mad at her for advocating for a change (something that obviously resonated as problematic by a lot of female and feminist birders). She then used these hateful comments as a reason to make a public statement. Nobody in the feminist community ever got mad at the RSPB about this, the only ones that got upset are men claiming this change isn't important.

Either way, feminism or not, the decision is still absolutely a good decision, because there's no reason for female ducks to be illustrated smaller than males. They aren't noticeably smaller at all in real life, they're naturally less colourful and harder to identify, so being able to properly see the details is more important than with males, and males even look like them half the year. She never mentioned anything about ducks being illustrated as "more drab" than they actually are - you made that up.

Sorry for straying off-topic, but this comment was too ridiculous not to respond to. What exactly do we gain from making fun of feminists? Grow up and be an ally, instead of making fun of people trying to make the world a better place.

I only reported the situation as I heard it from others, I never actually saw said tweet (I amke a point to never go on Twitter).

 

[Terry Thomas]

I know that this is from mid-2020, but I still felt it was worth sharing here.

"Amid protests over racism and inequality over the last months, Confederate statues and similar markers across the U.S. have been removed — some quietly, in the middle of the night, and some toppled by crowds. A similar reckoning is happening in the bird world when it comes to eponymous and honorific English common bird names — human names placed on birds, either to honor or memorialize someone.

“They’re essentially verbal statues for birds and the bird community, because these mostly white men were part of a really dark time in our history,” said Jordan Rutter, who is helping lead an initiative with co-founder Gabriel Foley and others in the birding community, called Bird Names for Birds. Rutter has a Master’s degree in ornithology, and has been birding as long as she can remember."
Reckoning with the Racist Past of Bird Names - The Allegheny Front

Yet another way of re-writing history? It's been happening for centuries!

 

[CGSwans]

I only reported the situation as I heard it from others, I never actually saw said tweet (I amke a point to never go on Twitter).

Perhaps this can be a lesson about the dangers of taking social media outrage cycles at face value.

 

[Gomphothere]

This movement is alive and active. As I read their website (Bird Names For Birds), they are aiming at only common names. But, as I also understand the website, they are aiming at all eponymous common names.

This is, IMHO, inconsistent with the very principles they claim they are trying to vindicate. One of the basic aspects of prejudice or discrimination is generalizing, the old "I know some of them and they're all alike" attitude. This group is painting all such names with the same broad brush, even if the person whose name the bird bears was faultless even by today's "woke" standards.

They take the position that all such names somehow perpetuate colonialism and therefore also racism. Given the number of species of birds named for people and the number of different people involved, that statement cannot possibly be true. They seem to understand this point to some extent, so they are in fact in the process of writing biographies of all the people for whom birds are named to offer individual justifications for changing the names. Take a look at the biography they've put together for Steller, and you can see the extent to which they labor to justify taking his name off all the species named for him. To my eyes, they don't really have any evidence that he was a bad guy, so they construct a thin structure of circumstantial evidence.
Steller, Georg Wilhelm

I'm sure that some of the people for whom birds were named were truly bad people. Some of them may also have been pretty good people who did a few bad things. I suspect that many of them were in fact, at least by the standards of their day (by which they deserve to be judged) genuinely upright. And I suspect that at least a few were saintly even by modern standards. And they all deserve to be treated as individuals and not robbed of their dignity by blanket proclamations of collective colonialism and racism.

 

[Vision]

This movement is alive and active. As I read their website (Bird Names For Birds), they are aiming at only common names. But, as I also understand the website, they are aiming at all eponymous common names.

This is, IMHO, inconsistent with the very principles they claim they are trying to vindicate. One of the basic aspects of prejudice or discrimination is generalizing, the old "I know some of them and they're all alike" attitude. This group is painting all such names with the same broad brush, even if the person whose name the bird bears was faultless even by today's "woke" standards.

They take the position that all such names somehow perpetuate colonialism and therefore also racism. Given the number of species of birds named for people and the number of different people involved, that statement cannot possibly be true. They seem to understand this point to some extent, so they are in fact in the process of writing biographies of all the people for whom birds are named to offer individual justifications for changing the names. Take a look at the biography they've put together for Steller, and you can see the extent to which they labor to justify taking his name off all the species named for him. To my eyes, they don't really have any evidence that he was a bad guy, so they construct a thin structure of circumstantial evidence.
Steller, Georg Wilhelm

I'm sure that some of the people for whom birds were named were truly bad people. Some of them may also have been pretty good people who did a few bad things. I suspect that many of them were in fact, at least by the standards of their day (by which they deserve to be judged) genuinely upright. And I suspect that at least a few were saintly even by modern standards. And they all deserve to be treated as individuals and not robbed of their dignity by blanket proclamations of collective colonialism and racism.

I feel like throughout this post, you're confusing and conflating two completely different arguments: the argument for why honorifics as they stand are perpetuating colonialism on one hand, and the argument for why we should get rid of all honorifics and not just the "bad" ones on the other hand.

I think it's quite trivial to see how honorifics as a whole perpetuate colonialism: I don't have exact numbers on this, but I'm relatively confident that upwards of 90% of birds are named after white men, and upwards of 95% of birds are named after white people in general. A vast majority of these birds occur outside of the "Global North" (by lack of a better term), and a lot of these birds will have been known before and after their discovery to western science by other names. Individually a lot of these white people are definitely not "bad people", but the collective entity of ~850 eponymous bird names (7.6% of all bird names) across the entire world, of which almost none are linked to the people living in their core ranges, definitely show that there is a problem. They don't take the position that all names perpetuate colonialism and racism individually, they take the position that as a whole there's something wrong with the concept of eponyms in bird names.

They tackle the argument for why we should get rid of all honorifics in their FAQs. Essentially, it comes down to the point that by renaming all of them, you don't have to have people select which people historically were "good" and which were "bad". The vast majority of people in official naming committees are white, and for them to judge which racist things people have done in the past are 'bad enough' and which aren't, would be racist and problematic in and of itself. The most peaceful way to get rid of the problematic eponyms is to tackle this universally, it's ridiculous to try picking out the good from the bad, and it's better that no bird is associated with any negative baggage of people it is not associated with.

Alongside this is one of their other central points: honorifics are bad names. No matter how saintly the person that described the birds was, the entire bird's natural history (and their observed history by people) is not less important or less interesting than the first white person that came to their range, shot one and submitted a report to a scientific magazine. Honorifics contain no useful information for ornithologists/birders/the general public, honorifics tie human baggage (bad, good, or a mix between both) to birds that have nothing to do with them, and in all situations a better and more helpful name can be thought of. Getting rid of honorifics and other problematic names also assists communication between ornithologists/birders and stakeholders involved in their conservation.

By tackling all names at the same time, they're not overgeneralizing the people behind the names (BN4B has never stated that all people birds are named after are problematic), but they're tackling a collective and global problem in a way that avoids any conflict at all. Picking and chosing which people are bad and which people are good would actually mean overgeneralizing people's mistakes and comparing different bad things people have done with each other, which they deliberately avoid by using a blanket approach.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I feel like throughout this post, you're confusing and conflating two completely different arguments: the argument for why honorifics as they stand are perpetuating colonialism on one hand, and the argument for why we should get rid of all honorifics and not just the "bad" ones on the other hand.

I think it's quite trivial to see how honorifics as a whole perpetuate colonialism: I don't have exact numbers on this, but I'm relatively confident that upwards of 90% of birds are named after white men, and upwards of 95% of birds are named after white people in general. A vast majority of these birds occur outside of the "Global North" (by lack of a better term), and a lot of these birds will have been known before and after their discovery to western science by other names. Individually a lot of these white people are definitely not "bad people", but the collective entity of ~850 eponymous bird names (7.6% of all bird names) across the entire world, of which almost none are linked to the people living in their core ranges, definitely show that there is a problem. They don't take the position that all names perpetuate colonialism and racism individually, they take the position that as a whole there's something wrong with the concept of eponyms in bird names.

They tackle the argument for why we should get rid of all honorifics in their FAQs. Essentially, it comes down to the point that by renaming all of them, you don't have to have people select which people historically were "good" and which were "bad". The vast majority of people in official naming committees are white, and for them to judge which racist things people have done in the past are 'bad enough' and which aren't, would be racist and problematic in and of itself. The most peaceful way to get rid of the problematic eponyms is to tackle this universally, it's ridiculous to try picking out the good from the bad, and it's better that no bird is associated with any negative baggage of people it is not associated with.

Alongside this is one of their other central points: honorifics are bad names. No matter how saintly the person that described the birds was, the entire bird's naturally history (and their observed history by people) is not less important or less interesting than the first white person that came to their range, shot one and submitted a report to a scientific magazine. Honorifics contain no useful information for ornithologists/birders/the general public, honorifics tie human baggage (bad, good, or a mix between both) to birds that have nothing to do with them, and in all situations a better and more helpful name can be thought of. Getting rid of honorifics and other problematic names also assists communication between ornithologists/birders and stakeholders involved in their conservation.

By tackling all names at the same time, they're not overgeneralizing the people behind the names (BN4B has never stated that all people birds are named after are problematic), but they're tackling a collective and global problem in a way that avoids any conflict at all. Picking and chosing which people are bad and which people are good would actually mean overgeneralizing people's mistakes and comparing different bad things people have done with each other, which they deliberately avoid by using a blanket approach.

In the language spoken in the range country the honorific used in the English language common name may not even be present so there isn't any conflict.

Dropping an honorific may permit some academics to congratulate themselves on being "anti-colonialist progressive heroes" but it is very unlikely to mean anything to anyone else.

The Spix macaw here in Brazil for example is known as the "ararinha-azul" in Portuguese which translates as "little blue macaw" and this obviously makes no reference to Von Spix as the English name does.

Moreover in the case of Alexander Von Humboldt and his honorifics in the common names of many species in the region like the penguin it is very complicated.

Humboldt is a figure who is honoured and embraced in Latin America even to this day (he may have been forgotten and have become unfashionable in Europe but he never did here) of both his scientific genius but also largely because he was a passionate anti-colonialist and fierce and vocal opponent of racism and slavery.

Finally to take my two examples above I would argue that what is actually critically important unlike the triviality of changing a name of a macaw or penguin is the task of effectively conserving these species and that fact seems to be lost in all of these academic squabbles over semantics.

 

[Vision]

Finally to take my two examples above I would argue that what is actually critically important unlike the triviality of changing a name of a macaw or penguin is the task of effectively conserving these species and that fact seems to be lost in all of these academic squabbles over semantics.

I think you're downplaying the importance of semantics in wildlife conservation massively with this statement. An approachable, easily understandable and relatable name creates a connection between people and birds, and can help bird conservation massively. Giving birds names that laypeople are likely to recognize as birds they have seen can create public awareness of their existence, and thus of their decline and need for conservation efforts. Nobody knows what a "Swainson's Thrush" is, but if hypothetically the name was changed to "Flycatching Thrush" or something else representing Catharus ustulatus's iconic behaviour, more people would realize that they've had these on their property (they're common, but strongly declining) and more people would realize that they're something we need to protect.

A few very real examples of names having an effect on bird conservation:

1) The old name "Oldsquaw" (which is a racist, sexist and ageist slur) for the bird we know now as Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis), directly negatively affected the communication between conservationists and people in the Alaskan tribes whose lands they were breeding on. Conservation management plans set up by biologists required help and cooperation of these Native Americans, and biologists had to practically beg the NACC (North American Classification and Nomenclature Committee) to be able to change this name because using it in official communication about the project would be detrimental to the plan's success. Long-tailed duck is a globally vulnerable species, that needs all the help it can get.

2) Locally in their breeding range, Kirtland's Warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii) is known as "Jack Pine Bird" or "Jack Pine Warbler", because they depend on young Pinus banksiana to breed. This name immediately makes it clear which habitat and plant the bird is dependent on, and makes it very easy to understand what needs to be done for their conservation. This species was on the brink of extinction 50 years ago, but through habitat management in coordination with locals they are now again self-sustaining, and the use of the vernacular name (and not the official name) proved to be a big part of that. By changing the official common name, an even broader public would be involved in their conservation.

Changing names isn't just an unimportant matter of "academic squabbles". Even if these above examples aren't convincing enough, the notion that this name-changing somehow distracts people from the species' conservation is nothing other than silly: BN4B is not a paid organization, and its core members are doing this project in their free time. If anything, this project (and its backlash) is drawing more attention to birds and bird conservation in general. Nobody participating finds themselves "anti-colonialist progressive heroes", they're just doing what they can to make the world a better place. These effects are real, and mean a lot of things to many people.

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

I feel like throughout this post, you're confusing and conflating two completely different arguments: the argument for why honorifics as they stand are perpetuating colonialism on one hand, and the argument for why we should get rid of all honorifics and not just the "bad" ones on the other hand.

I think it's quite trivial to see how honorifics as a whole perpetuate colonialism: I don't have exact numbers on this, but I'm relatively confident that upwards of 90% of birds are named after white men, and upwards of 95% of birds are named after white people in general. A vast majority of these birds occur outside of the "Global North" (by lack of a better term), and a lot of these birds will have been known before and after their discovery to western science by other names. Individually a lot of these white people are definitely not "bad people", but the collective entity of ~850 eponymous bird names (7.6% of all bird names) across the entire world, of which almost none are linked to the people living in their core ranges, definitely show that there is a problem. They don't take the position that all names perpetuate colonialism and racism individually, they take the position that as a whole there's something wrong with the concept of eponyms in bird names.

They tackle the argument for why we should get rid of all honorifics in their FAQs. Essentially, it comes down to the point that by renaming all of them, you don't have to have people select which people historically were "good" and which were "bad". The vast majority of people in official naming committees are white, and for them to judge which racist things people have done in the past are 'bad enough' and which aren't, would be racist and problematic in and of itself. The most peaceful way to get rid of the problematic eponyms is to tackle this universally, it's ridiculous to try picking out the good from the bad, and it's better that no bird is associated with any negative baggage of people it is not associated with.

Alongside this is one of their other central points: honorifics are bad names. No matter how saintly the person that described the birds was, the entire bird's natural history (and their observed history by people) is not less important or less interesting than the first white person that came to their range, shot one and submitted a report to a scientific magazine. Honorifics contain no useful information for ornithologists/birders/the general public, honorifics tie human baggage (bad, good, or a mix between both) to birds that have nothing to do with them, and in all situations a better and more helpful name can be thought of. Getting rid of honorifics and other problematic names also assists communication between ornithologists/birders and stakeholders involved in their conservation.

By tackling all names at the same time, they're not overgeneralizing the people behind the names (BN4B has never stated that all people birds are named after are problematic), but they're tackling a collective and global problem in a way that avoids any conflict at all. Picking and chosing which people are bad and which people are good would actually mean overgeneralizing people's mistakes and comparing different bad things people have done with each other, which they deliberately avoid by using a blanket approach.

The idea that birds in euroepan languages have european names is probelmatic, is just a silly joke.

 

[Gomphothere]

Your response, Vision, proves my point. The drive to eliminate the bad names steamrolls over the dignity and merit of the good names. The idea that there isn't a single meritorious eponym out of ~850 is simply not credible, as O.c.'s point about Humboldt proves. If a new species is discovered in Africa and it is proposed to name it after a hero ranger executed by poachers, you would veto the proposal because a number of dead white guys did stuff history judges to be wrong. If there were a European warbler named after any one of a number of heroic, saintly leaders who resisted conquering armies (in modern terms, anticolonialists), you would insist the name be dropped. Should we drop all the uses of Darwin's name even? Where does it stop--should we abolish "cardinal" as a bird name because some of the Princes of the Church (for whom the birds are named) have been serious sinners? And the idea that you should have such a blanket, indiscriminate rule as you propose is exactly the assault on individual dignity and worth that should not be tolerated and is the creeping cancer of the frantic search for systemic racism under every rock in every system. You would unjustly marginalize the deserving namesakes for the sake of an attempted march to justice while yielding a crude, blunt tool rather than the finely-tuned device that real, true justice requires. It is the equivalent of declaring the meritorious guilty by association with the non-meritorious. Abdicating from making judgments about merit is the lazy, unprincipled way out of the issue, a way that directly violates the principle that each person deserves to be judged on that person's own merits (rather than by the mistakes or other flaws of a group with which the person is accidentally associated).

Your suggestion that honorifics are inherently "bad", independent of race and other issues, is not self-evident. Estimates are that there are at least 10,000, and perhaps as many as 20,000 species of birds. The idea that we can come up with a purely descriptive common name for every species that is short enough to be practical and carries enough information to distinguish the bird from every other species is not convincing, at least not to me.

And, frankly, I think that the effect of the names on perpetuating colonialism is indeed trivial. I've been studying birds for about sixty years and have two university degrees in zoology. Other than a couple of the most prominent namesakes such as Darwin and Humboldt, I've never had a clue who the others were and never cared. And if someone as steeped in the science as I am remained blissfully ignorant of any association and thus implied endorsement of colonialism or worse, you can only conclude that 99.999999+% of the population is in the same boat. Find me someone whose self-image has been measurably damaged by one of these names and I'll buy you dinner (mammal, fish, fowl or vegan, your choice).

That being said, the point about the Oldsquaw name (which I considered obnoxious from the day I first saw it) is entirely valid, but it is not an eponym, which leaves it out of the present discussion. I rejoiced the day I learned it had been officially replaced.

I have no issue with eliminating the eponyms that can be credibly tied to evils such as slavery. I have a major issue with the idea that even the honorable namesakes should be dishonored because some of the others were dishonorable. That is denying the individual worth and dignity of the honorable persons, a cardinal sin in my book.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I think you're downplaying the importance of semantics in wildlife conservation massively with this statement. An approachable, easily understandable and relatable name creates a connection between people and birds, and can help bird conservation massively. Giving birds names that laypeople are likely to recognize as birds they have seen can create public awareness of their existence, and thus of their decline and need for conservation efforts. Nobody knows what a "Swainson's Thrush" is, but if hypothetically the name was changed to "Flycatching Thrush" or something else representing Catharus ustulatus's iconic behaviour, more people would realize that they've had these on their property (they're common, but strongly declining) and more people would realize that they're something we need to protect.

A few very real examples of names having an effect on bird conservation:

1) The old name "Oldsquaw" (which is a racist, sexist and ageist slur) for the bird we know now as Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis), directly negatively affected the communication between conservationists and people in the Alaskan tribes whose lands they were breeding on. Conservation management plans set up by biologists required help and cooperation of these Native Americans, and biologists had to practically beg the NACC (North American Classification and Nomenclature Committee) to be able to change this name because using it in official communication about the project would be detrimental to the plan's success. Long-tailed duck is a globally vulnerable species, that needs all the help it can get.

2) Locally in their breeding range, Kirtland's Warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii) is known as "Jack Pine Bird" or "Jack Pine Warbler", because they depend on young Pinus banksiana to breed. This name immediately makes it clear which habitat and plant the bird is dependent on, and makes it very easy to understand what needs to be done for their conservation. This species was on the brink of extinction 50 years ago, but through habitat management in coordination with locals they are now again self-sustaining, and the use of the vernacular name (and not the official name) proved to be a big part of that. By changing the official common name, an even broader public would be involved in their conservation.

Changing names isn't just an unimportant matter of "academic squabbles". Even if these above examples aren't convincing enough, the notion that this name-changing somehow distracts people from the species' conservation is nothing other than silly: BN4B is not a paid organization, and its core members are doing this project in their free time. If anything, this project (and its backlash) is drawing more attention to birds and bird conservation in general. Nobody participating finds themselves "anti-colonialist progressive heroes", they're just doing what they can to make the world a better place. These effects are real, and mean a lot of things to many people.

I'm very aware of the importance of semantics in wildlife conservation believe me because I work in wildlife conservation and am well aware of the need for conservation marketing.

Interesting point about the name facilitating recognition and public awareness of a species but citation needed for that claim based on a hypothesis because I suspect that it is actually the experience itself rather than semantics which is pivotal.

The "old squaw" clearly is a name with racist tones towards indigenous peoples and I'm very glad that it's gone and is no longer a point of conflict between Conservationists and indigenous peoples.

However that is one example in the US so would you care to mention more examples that have generated this kind of issue but in countries outside of the Anglophone sphere ?

The Kirkland warbler is an interesting example but again this in the USA and I want to hear more examples from you of names of birds in other geographical regions that are problematic.

I personally do think that changing the name of a threatened bird species is 9 times out of 10 way down the list of priorities that consist of the actual concrete real world actions that safeguard populations in either an in-situ or ex-situ sense.

I think that we are in a period of post modernity in which large segments of society for whatever reason have become obsessed like some tedious and pretentious academic with the minutiae of semantics.

Notwithstanding valid examples that you've given like the long tailed duck I think in most cases this is just a colossal waste of time and energy that could be better galvanized and directed to real world Conservation.

 

[CGSwans]

I personally do think that changing the name of a threatened bird species is 9 times out of 10 way down the list of priorities that consist of the actual concrete real world actions that safeguard populations in either an in-situ or ex-situ sense.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world where people - either individuals or a group of people working separately - were able to do more than one thing at a time?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world where people - either individuals or a group of people working separately - were able to do more than one thing at a time?

Lol

Well I'd like to see examples of people who are doing both and to hear their rationale for their involvement in this.

Moreover I'd specifically like to see examples of this outside of the Anglosphere countries because I am getting the distinct impression that it is mainly a big deal to people in those regions.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Your response, Vision, proves my point. The drive to eliminate the bad names steamrolls over the dignity and merit of the good names. The idea that there isn't a single meritorious eponym out of ~850 is simply not credible, as O.c.'s point about Humboldt proves. If a new species is discovered in Africa and it is proposed to name it after a hero ranger executed by poachers, you would veto the proposal because a number of dead white guys did stuff history judges to be wrong. If there were a European warbler named after any one of a number of heroic, saintly leaders who resisted conquering armies (in modern terms, anticolonialists), you would insist the name be dropped. Should we drop all the uses of Darwin's name even? Where does it stop--should we abolish "cardinal" as a bird name because some of the Princes of the Church (for whom the birds are named) have been serious sinners? And the idea that you should have such a blanket, indiscriminate rule as you propose is exactly the assault on individual dignity and worth that should not be tolerated and is the creeping cancer of the frantic search for systemic racism under every rock in every system. You would unjustly marginalize the deserving namesakes for the sake of an attempted march to justice while yielding a crude, blunt tool rather than the finely-tuned device that real, true justice requires. It is the equivalent of declaring the meritorious guilty by association with the non-meritorious. Abdicating from making judgments about merit is the lazy, unprincipled way out of the issue, a way that directly violates the principle that each person deserves to be judged on that person's own merits (rather than by the mistakes or other flaws of a group with which the person is accidentally associated).

Your suggestion that honorifics are inherently "bad", independent of race and other issues, is not self-evident. Estimates are that there are at least 10,000, and perhaps as many as 20,000 species of birds. The idea that we can come up with a purely descriptive common name for every species that is short enough to be practical and carries enough information to distinguish the bird from every other species is not convincing, at least not to me.

And, frankly, I think that the effect of the names on perpetuating colonialism is indeed trivial. I've been studying birds for about sixty years and have two university degrees in zoology. Other than a couple of the most prominent namesakes such as Darwin and Humboldt, I've never had a clue who the others were and never cared. And if someone as steeped in the science as I am remained blissfully ignorant of any association and thus implied endorsement of colonialism or worse, you can only conclude that 99.999999+% of the population is in the same boat. Find me someone whose self-image has been measurably damaged by one of these names and I'll buy you dinner (mammal, fish, fowl or vegan, your choice).

That being said, the point about the Oldsquaw name (which I considered obnoxious from the day I first saw it) is entirely valid, but it is not an eponym, which leaves it out of the present discussion. I rejoiced the day I learned it had been officially replaced.

I have no issue with eliminating the eponyms that can be credibly tied to evils such as slavery. I have a major issue with the idea that even the honorable namesakes should be dishonored because some of the others were dishonorable. That is denying the individual worth and dignity of the honorable persons, a cardinal sin in my book.

It's hugely ironic as far as I can see that such an enormous effort and energy is going into addressing every dimension of historical colonialism and not that which is ongoing in the present.

It all seems rather academic to me more than anything else...

It's too easy to go to battle like Don Quixote tilting at windmills against all of the dead racist Victorian colonialists of the 19th century and language itself but what about neo colonialism and racism in the present and it's impact on human communities and threatened bird species?

A bit more inconvenient and uncomfortable in terms of comfort zone I suppose.

What about human rights abuses against indigenous ethnic groups of Sumatra like the Orang Rimba and the Dayak Iban and bird species like the Sumatran ground Cuckoo both of whom are losing their home / habitat to Palm oil plantations to fuel global demand ?

What about the racism and human rights abuses against Indigenous peoples in the Amazon and Atlantic rainforest of Brazil like the Tupi-Guarani and the Yamomami and species like the Rio Branco antbird who are losing their home /habitat to agricultural conversion and logging to supply western and Chinese demand for beef and soy and timber ?

What about racism and human rights abuses against the Baka indigenous peoples of Cameroon and threatened species like the Bannerman's turaco who are being displaced from their homes / habitat as their forest is logged for timber and mining ?

 

[Vision]

Your response, Vision, proves my point. The drive to eliminate the bad names steamrolls over the dignity and merit of the good names. The idea that there isn't a single meritorious eponym out of ~850 is simply not credible, as O.c.'s point about Humboldt proves.

This really doesn't prove anything, other than that you didn't read my post correctly. My entire argument is based on the fact that none of these eponyms are good names - Even those named after the "good guys" provide no useful information about the animals themselves. In fact, you seem to agree with me in this regard, because you yourself say that you don't even care about or know who discovered those birds (which is the only natural historic thing that their name has to offer to begin with).

If a new species is discovered in Africa and it is proposed to name it after a hero ranger executed by poachers, you would veto the proposal because a number of dead white guys did stuff history judges to be wrong. If there were a European warbler named after any one of a number of heroic, saintly leaders who resisted conquering armies (in modern terms, anticolonialists), you would insist the name be dropped. Should we drop all the uses of Darwin's name even?

As I have mentioned in earlier posts, by picking and choosing the "bad names" and removing those, you would be a lot more offensive to both the people these birds are named after ("Why did my name get removed and not theirs?") AND to the minorities that were being abused in these bad cases ("Why is an offense towards one minority deemed more legitimate and more problematic than an offense towards another minority?"). By getting rid of ALL of them, including the Darwins and the Humboldts, you're not targeting specific people but getting rid of an entire systematic problem.

And the idea that you should have such a blanket, indiscriminate rule as you propose is exactly the assault on individual dignity and worth that should not be tolerated and is the creeping cancer of the frantic search for systemic racism under every rock in every system. You would unjustly marginalize the deserving namesakes for the sake of an attempted march to justice while yielding a crude, blunt tool rather than the finely-tuned device that real, true justice requires. It is the equivalent of declaring the meritorious guilty by association with the non-meritorious. Abdicating from making judgments about merit is the lazy, unprincipled way out of the issue, a way that directly violates the principle that each person deserves to be judged on that person's own merits (rather than by the mistakes or other flaws of a group with which the person is accidentally associated).

I have no issue with eliminating the eponyms that can be credibly tied to evils such as slavery. I have a major issue with the idea that even the honorable namesakes should be dishonored because some of the others were dishonorable. That is denying the individual worth and dignity of the honorable persons, a cardinal sin in my book.

By removing all of these names, we/they are NOT attacking individuals - that is precisely what only getting rid of the "bad" names would be doing, because then you're focusing on individual deeds instead of focusing on the concept of eponymous names as a whole. It is not dishonourable to lose an eponym when it is being done by a movement removing all eponyms, it IS explicitly dishonourable to lose an eponym when most others are still around. By picking and choosing the bad ones, you're making people decide who is bad and who is good.

Estimates are that there are at least 10,000, and perhaps as many as 20,000 species of birds. The idea that we can come up with a purely descriptive common name for every species that is short enough to be practical and carries enough information to distinguish the bird from every other species is not convincing, at least not to me.

What a weird argument. Because you can't think of 11000 unique names that would be valuable, nobody can? These species have all been split off based on morphological, habitual, ecological, vocal differences, all of which are often used in common names. Only a very small minority of species are split off only on genetic differences, and even then I'd argue that genetic-based common names tell more about the bird's natural history than any person's name would.

And if someone as steeped in the science as I am remained blissfully ignorant of any association and thus implied endorsement of colonialism or worse, you can only conclude that 99.999999+% of the population is in the same boat. Find me someone whose self-image has been measurably damaged by one of these names and I'll buy you dinner (mammal, fish, fowl or vegan, your choice).

How can any individual claim to understand how all of these names effect the lives of other individuals? Either way, here's a good example.

However that is one example in the US so would you care to mention more examples that have generated this kind of issue but in countries outside of the Anglophone sphere ?

The Kirkland warbler is an interesting example but again this in the USA and I want to hear more examples from you of names of birds in other geographical regions that are problematic.

I'll be honest: No, I don't. This makes sense, though, because we're talking about english common names, and the places where english common names are used most often is in the Anglosphere. This does not really effect the problem at hand, which is that overall white supremacy and (neo)colonialism in bird names is still being normalized.

I personally do think that changing the name of a threatened bird species is 9 times out of 10 way down the list of priorities that consist of the actual concrete real world actions that safeguard populations in either an in-situ or ex-situ sense.

I think that we are in a period of post modernity in which large segments of society for whatever reason have become obsessed like some tedious and pretentious academic with the minutiae of semantics.

Notwithstanding valid examples that you've given like the long tailed duck I think in most cases this is just a colossal waste of time and energy that could be better galvanized and directed to real world Conservation.

It's hugely ironic as far as I can see that such an enormous effort and energy is going into addressing every dimension of historical colonialism and not that which is ongoing in the present.

It all seems rather academic to me more than anything else...

It's too easy to go to battle like Don Quixote tilting at windmills against all of the dead racist Victorian colonialists of the 19th century and language itself but what about neo colonialism and racism in the present and it's impact on human communities and threatened bird species?

A bit more inconvenient and uncomfortable in terms of comfort zone I suppose.

What about human rights abuses against indigenous ethnic groups of Sumatra like the Orang Rimba and the Dayak Iban and bird species like the Sumatran ground Cuckoo both of whom are losing their home / habitat to Palm oil plantations to fuel global demand ?

What about the racism and human rights abuses against Indigenous peoples in the Amazon and Atlantic rainforest of Brazil like the Tupi-Guarani and the Yamomami and species like the Rio Branco antbird who are losing their home /habitat to agricultural conversion and logging to supply western and Chinese demand for beef and soy and timber ?

What about racism and human rights abuses against the Baka indigenous peoples of Cameroon and threatened species like the Bannerman's turaco who are being displaced from their homes / habitat as their forest is logged for timber and mining ?

Sorry, while these are all very real issues that deserve more attention than they currently receive, this is irrelevant in this conversation. Can we, collectively, as human beings, no longer fix small problems because there are bigger problems ongoing in the rest of the world? The people behind BN4B are individuals doing this thing in their own free time, alongside presumably a job, which may OR may not be conservation-related. This doesn't replace any attention going to conservation, doesn't distract from any ongoing or future conservation program, and doesn't distract from any ongoing human or animal right problems. People can work on fixing multiple problems at a time.

the creeping cancer of the frantic search for systemic racism under every rock in every system.

As I've said upthread to someone else - Grow up and be an ally. You could be arguing for a nicer, less racist and more inclusive environment, but instead you're attacking those trying to. Please reconsider your perspective.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

This really doesn't prove anything, other than that you didn't read my post correctly. My entire argument is based on the fact that none of these eponyms are good names - Even those named after the "good guys" provide no useful information about the animals themselves. In fact, you seem to agree with me in this regard, because you yourself say that you don't even care about or know who discovered those birds (which is the only natural historic thing that their name has to offer to begin with).


As I have mentioned in earlier posts, by picking and choosing the "bad names" and removing those, you would be a lot more offensive to both the people these birds are named after ("Why did my name get removed and not theirs?") AND to the minorities that were being abused in these bad cases ("Why is an offense towards one minority deemed more legitimate and more problematic than an offense towards another minority?"). By getting rid of ALL of them, including the Darwins and the Humboldts, you're not targeting specific people but getting rid of an entire systematic problem.



By removing all of these names, we/they are NOT attacking individuals - that is precisely what only getting rid of the "bad" names would be doing, because then you're focusing on individual deeds instead of focusing on the concept of eponymous names as a whole. It is not dishonourable to lose an eponym when it is being done by a movement removing all eponyms, it IS explicitly dishonourable to lose an eponym when most others are still around. By picking and choosing the bad ones, you're making people decide who is bad and who is good.


What a weird argument. Because you can't think of 11000 unique names that would be valuable, nobody can? These species have all been split off based on morphological, habitual, ecological, vocal differences, all of which are often used in common names. Only a very small minority of species are split off only on genetic differences, and even then I'd argue that genetic-based common names tell more about the bird's natural history than any person's name would.


How can any individual claim to understand how all of these names effect the lives of other individuals? Either way, here's a good example.


I'll be honest: No, I don't. This makes sense, though, because we're talking about english common names, and the places where english common names are used most often is in the Anglosphere. This does not really effect the problem at hand, which is that overall white supremacy and (neo)colonialism in bird names is still being normalized.



Sorry, while these are all very real issues that deserve more attention than they currently receive, this is irrelevant in this conversation. Can we, collectively, as human beings, no longer fix small problems because there are bigger problems ongoing in the rest of the world? The people behind BN4B are individuals doing this thing in their own free time, alongside presumably a job, which may OR may not be conservation-related. This doesn't replace any attention going to conservation, doesn't distract from any ongoing or future conservation program, and doesn't distract from any ongoing human or animal right problems. People can work on fixing multiple problems at a time.


As I've said upthread to someone else - Grow up and be an ally. You could be arguing for a nicer, less racist and more inclusive environment, but instead you're attacking those trying to. Please reconsider your perspective.

Have you entertained the thought that perhaps you don't know of any examples outside of the anglophone and perhaps to a lesser extent the francophone sphere because it actually is only considered to be a problem in those parts of the world ?

Perhaps the rest of the world are more focused on..you know.. ACTUAL Conservation issues and issues of human rights and combating actual racism and oppression in real time?

Barring the example you gave of the duck species in North America which I do think justified a name change most of this just strikes me as a lot of energy and time going in completely the wrong place to a non issue.

In Mexico and Central and South America many names of animals are indigenous in origin whether this be from languages such as Nahuatl or Maya or Embera or Quechua or Tupi Guarani and in the case of the Caribbean of the extinct Taino peoples.

 

[amur leopard]

Barring the example you gave of the duck species in North America which I do think justified a name change most of this just strikes me as a lot of energy and time going in completely the wrong place to a non issue.

See below.

This doesn't replace any attention going to conservation, doesn't distract from any ongoing or future conservation program, and doesn't distract from any ongoing human or animal right problems. People can work on fixing multiple problems at a time.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

This really doesn't prove anything, other than that you didn't read my post correctly. My entire argument is based on the fact that none of these eponyms are good names - Even those named after the "good guys" provide no useful information about the animals themselves. In fact,you seem to agree with me in this regard, because you yourself say that you don't even care about or know who discovered those birds (which is the only natural historic thing that their name has to offer to begin with).


As I have mentioned in earlier posts, by picking and choosing the "bad names" and removing those, you would be a lot more offensive to both the people these birds are named after ("Why did my name get removed and not theirs?") AND to the minorities that were being abused in these bad cases ("Why is an offense towards one minority deemed more legitimate and more problematic than an offense towards another minority?"). By getting rid of ALL of them, including the Darwins and the Humboldts, you're not targeting specific people but getting rid of an entire systematic problem.



By removing all of these names, we/they are NOT attacking individuals - that is precisely what only getting rid of the "bad" names would be doing, because then you're hifocusing on individual deeds instead of focusing on the concept of eponymous names as a whole. It is not dishonourable to lose an eponym when it is being done by a movement removing all eponyms, it IS explicitly dishonourable to lose an eponym when most others are still around. By picking and choosing the bad ones, you're making people decide who is bad and who is good.


What a weird argument. Because you can't think of 11000 unique names that would be valuable, nobody can? These species have all been split off based on morphological, habitual, ecological, vocal differences, all of which are often used in common names. Only a very small minority of species are split off only on genetic differences, and even then I'd argue that genetic-based common names tell more about the bird's natural history than any person's name would.


How can any individual claim to understand how all of these names effect the lives of other individuals? Either way, here's a good example.


I'll be honest: No, I don't. This makes sense, though, because we're talking about english common names, and the places where english common names are used most often is in the Anglosphere. This does not really effect the problem at hand, which is that overall white supremacy and (neo)colonialism in bird names is still being normalized.



Sorry, while these are all very real issues that deserve more attention than they currently receive, this is irrelevant in this conversation. Can we, collectively, as human beings, no longer fix small problems because there are bigger problems ongoing in the rest of the world? The people behind BN4B are individuals doing this thing in their own free time, alongside presumably a job, which may OR may not be conservation-related. This doesn't replace any attention going to conservation, doesn't distract from any ongoing or future conservation program, and doesn't distract from any ongoing human or animal right problems. People can work on fixing multiple problems at a time.


As I've said upthread to someone else - Grow up and be an ally. You could be arguing for a nicer, less racist and more inclusive environment, but instead you're attacking those trying to. Please reconsider your perspective.

How is it irrelevant ?

You guys are tilting at linguistic and historical windmills and suggesting that it improves bird Conservation and public engagement with Conservation right ?

Citation needed for that claim please and I'd like to see any peer reviewed studies that prove that.

What I suggest is to actually face current issues of avian biodiversity loss and human rights abuses in the present because it is about to get a hell of a lot worse.

There are many regions of the world with threatened bird species and their habitats and threatened human communities and the Conservation of one is inextricably linked to the wellbeing and livelihood of the other.

My suggestion is to focus on those issues rather than playing silly semantic games of Scrabble.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

See below.

So people either call a bird for example the Rothschild mynah or the Bali starling (which is what I've always known it as in English anyway) what is the big deal ?

Most people don't look at this species in a zoo aviary (where it is typically labeled as a Bali starling or mynah) and say or think "oh what a pity it is named after a wealthy white Victorian Jewish banker weirdo who had a mania for collecting specimens from all corners of the European empires".

They typically think or say "oh what a beautiful and unusual bird" because it is the experience of seeing the bird itself which is salient and if they have read the signage then they might think "what a shame it was on the verge of extinction but it's brilliant that it is now being conserved".

Perhaps some people who are totally fixated on everything woke might experience a Bali mynah in such a way and feel the need to get enraged about one of it's many names and I feel sorry for them If they do.

The important thing is that it is still extant and viable in the wild and that there are genetically viable ex-situ insurance populations in captivity.

 

[Vision]

My suggestion is to focus on those issues rather than playing silly semantic games of Scrabble.

...And mine is to do both. Don't undermine people trying to fix smaller issues, at least they're still fixing issues.

I think this article might partially be what you're looking for?