Reckoning with the Racist Past of Bird Names

[amur leopard]

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 ?

I agree that conservation of the species is more important, but I don't understand what your actual problem with this is. Your entire argument appears to be centred around the 'Waste of time and money' rationale, which has already largely been countered by Vision, yet you ignore this and continue to talk about conservation when this conversation is nothing to do with it.

The thing is, this is not really to do with birds at all, it is a question that goes far beyond. Honorifics attach the names of people to a beautiful animal that really has nothing to do with that person. That has always struck me as odd, unhelpful and in the cases where the honoured person did a great deal of harm, completely wrong. Why should a bird have to bear the name someone like Winfield Scott (as mentioned in the article linked upthread) when Scott never saw or had anything to do with bird yet oversaw the extermination of thousands of people?

So, really, are you against the idea itself or just the fact that you perceive it to be a waste of time and resources? If if the former, why?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I agree that conservation of the species is more important, but I don't understand what your actual problem with this is. Your entire argument appears to be centred around the 'Waste of time and money' rationale, which has already largely been countered by Vision, yet you ignore this and continue to talk about conservation when this conversation is nothing to do with it.

The thing is, this is not really to do with birds at all, it is a question that goes far beyond. Honorifics attach the names of people to a beautiful animal that really has nothing to do with that person. That has always struck me as odd, unhelpful and in the cases where the honoured person did a great deal of harm, completely wrong. Why should a bird have to bear the name someone like Winfield Scott (as mentioned in the article linked upthread) when Scott never saw or had anything to do with bird yet oversaw the extermination of thousands of people?

So, really, are you against the idea itself or just the fact that you perceive it to be a waste of time and resources? If if the former, why?

Because to be totally frank it's just another waste of time IMO.

Fight actual current racism fight against current species extinctions and fight against current neocolonialism.

Which is not to say be ignorant of the historical context of past centuries or to condone or justify colonialism or racism or elitism or a European centric view of the world quite the opposite actually.

But be mindful of the fact that there are real and worthwhile and genuinely revolutionary battles to be fought and then there are those that academics love to squabble over but that are colossal time wasters.

 

[birdsandbats]

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.

No one calls Kirtland's "Jack Pine Warblers". This name is an invention of the least few years.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

...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?

I wasn't looking for that actually as I already know about the use of Maori names (alongside English names)for species in NZ in scientific literature and zoos etc and support it

Check out my thread on folklore and animals where I always write the name of a species in the indigenous or native language alongside the English or common language.

 

[amur leopard]

Because to be totally frank it's just another waste of time IMO.

Fight actual current racism fight against current species extinctions and fight against current neocolonialism.

Which is not to say be ignorant of the historical context of past centuries or to condone or justify colonialism or racism or elitism or a European centric view of the world quite the opposite actually.

But be mindful of the fact that there are real and worthwhile and genuinely revolutionary battles to be fought and then there are those that academics love to squabble over but that are colossal time wasters.

Again, you dodge the question - are you against the idea itself or not? It's one thing to think it isn't worth the time investment (which I don't agree with just to be clear), but does the fundamental logic behind the idea not make sense to you?

You don't seem to realise that these kinds of little changes and statements can make a big difference, and that if we can change something for the better, why shouldn't we?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Again, you dodge the question - are you against the idea itself or not? It's one thing to think it isn't worth the time investment (which I don't agree with just to be clear), but does the fundamental logic behind the idea not make sense to you?

You don't seem to realise that these kinds of little changes and statements can make a big difference, and that if we can change something for the better, why shouldn't we?

I don't see any logic in it actually apart from the example given about the duck and perhaps more species that I am not aware of (because I'm not much of a birder) that have unfortunate names with racist tones which should absolutely be changed.

Renaming every species with an honorific seems to me to be a colossal waste of time but if that's your thing then be a Sancho Panza and tilt away at those windmills.

Just be mindful that there are a thousand more worthwhile things that you could do to combat racism or raise awareness of history or to support Conservation.

 

[Mr. Zootycoon]

Several times I've tried to write down my opinion about this subject, but I have a hard time articulating my feelings about it. If I'm completely frank, I'm feeling quite uneasy with the name changes. Explaining why would result in several boring paragraphs which could easily be misunderstood. I tried, but failed, to summarize it in a few sentences.

But, even though I personally feel uneasy about it, if the name changes help in any way to further bird conservation or make birding more inclusive and accessible, than there's no debate. Deciding which honorary names are good and which are bad is an unhelpful exercise, so we should replace all of them. For those who say that changing bird names is not useful anyway because it doesn't address the main racism/(neo)colonialism problems of today*, see it this way: if the birding community makes a conscious effort to ensure inclusivity, it signals that "we" are willing to push aside some of "our" customs to make the hobby more accessible to others. That signal alone can make minorities more comfortable with birding.

(* As a quick side-note: if we leave the utilitarian view aside for a moment and see things from, for example, a deontological or virtue ethical perspective, making the birding community more inclusive is a good thing in and of itself, whether it serves greater good or not.)

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Several times I've tried to write down my opinion about this subject, but I have a hard time articulating my feelings about it. If I'm completely frank, I'm feeling quite uneasy with the name changes. Explaining why would result in several boring paragraphs which could easily be misunderstood. I tried, but failed, to summarize it in a few sentences.

But, even though I personally feel uneasy about it, if the name changes help in any way to further bird conservation or make birding more inclusive and accessible, than there's no debate. Deciding which honorary names are good and which are bad is an unhelpful exercise, so we should replace all of them. For those who say that changing bird names is not useful anyway because it doesn't address the main racism/(neo)colonialism problems of today*, see it this way: if the birding community makes a conscious effort to ensure inclusivity, it signals that "we" are willing to push aside some of "our" customs to make the hobby more accessible to others. That signal alone can make minorities more comfortable with birding.

(* As a quick side-note: if we leave the utilitarian view aside for a moment and see things from, for example, a deontological or virtue ethical perspective, making the birding community more inclusive is a good thing in and of itself, whether it serves greater good or not.)

I'm all for making birding and Conservation more inclusive and it is in fact a core belief and value of mine.

I will always be mindful and fully committed towards the inclusion of Afro-Brazilians indigenous peoples and working class Brazilians in conservation here.

But I believe the name change thing and obsession with semantics to be a total waste of time and only an issue in Anglosphere countries and on social media.

If you have evidence that it isn't then please share as I would be interested in reading more.

Ultimately I don't really care though as regardless of the name of a North American or European species and if it changes or not the most pressing issue is Conservation of said species.

 

[Gomphothere]

The claim that this movement is somehow neutral with respect to the namesakes and based on the idea that all eponyms are "bad" is patently not credible because that's not how it began. The movement began by seeking to get rid of the eponyms for the genuinely bad namesakes, an admirable goal. And then, when it met the complexity of making individual cases and asking for individual judgments, suddenly discovered that all eponyms are somehow bad. It's an after the fact rationalization, not a foundational rationale. That's not really what's going on--what's going on is that this claim that even naming birds after model citizens such as Humboldt is somehow "bad" is a ruse to avoid the intricacies and hard work of individual judgments. It's infinitely simpler to dishonor all those with honorifics, but also an abdication of a responsible approach to the issue that accords each namesake the individual dignity that the person deserves as an elemental aspect of humanity. Has anyone even bothered to ask South Americans how they feel about the names for the Humboldt Penguin or Humboldt's Sapphire? (Or for that matter, any of of the several mammals with his name?) This is much like a city that, when it meets opposition to taking down all the statues of Confederate officers, decides it will take down all the statues in town instead, even of those who valiantly fought the cause against slavery, because it's an easier way to get rid of the real targets, even if injustice is the result.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

The claim that this movement is somehow neutral with respect to the namesakes and based on the idea that all eponyms are "bad" is patently not credible because that's not how it began. The movement began by seeking to get rid of the eponyms for the genuinely bad namesakes, an admirable goal. And then, when it met the complexity of making individual cases and asking for individual judgments, suddenly discovered that all eponyms are somehow bad. It's an after the fact rationalization, not a foundational rationale. That's not really what's going on--what's going on is that this claim that even naming birds after model citizens such as Humboldt is somehow "bad" is a ruse to avoid the intricacies and hard work of individual judgments. It's infinitely simpler to dishonor all those with honorifics, but also an abdication of a responsible approach to the issue that accords each namesake the individual dignity that the person deserves as an elemental aspect of humanity. Has anyone even bothered to ask South Americans how they feel about the names for the Humboldt Penguin or Humboldt's Sapphire? (Or for that matter, any of of the several mammals with his name?) This is much like a city that, when it meets opposition to taking down all the statues of Confederate officers, decides it will take down all the statues in town instead, even of those who valiantly fought the cause against slavery, because it's an easier way to get rid of the real targets, even if injustice is the result.

A couple of years ago I read a biography of Humboldt and here are a few takeaways that I remember that highlight his humanity.

He actually confronted Spanish colonial administrators on their abuses of indigenous peoples in the Andes and Mexico and slavery of Africans not once but several times despite the risks this could have entailed for him.

He insisted on the humanity of African and indigenous peoples passionately at a time when most European and European North and South Americans treated them as subhuman.

He was a friend and confidant and gave inspiration to Simon Bolivar who went on to become the independence leader who kicked the Spanish empire out of Spanish speaking South America.

He was a proto archeologist who documented and studied the archeological sites of Meso-American civilizations of Mexico at a time when the Spanish vandalized and buried them or melted artifacts down for gold.

During his stay in the USA he met with and heavily criticized Thomas Jefferson for his hypocritical support of the slave trade and personal ownership of slaves directly to his face not just once but several times.

Needless to say there is absolutely no way on earth that Humboldt could ever be considered to be a fellow traveler of the racist genocidal colonialists of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Anyone who would make that ridiculous mistake doesn't have a clue about him or his life and should improve their lazy and feckless knowledge of history.

 

[Tetzoo Quizzer]

And is the Humboldt Penguin named directly after the man, or indirectly by being named after the Humboldt Current? Does the Current need to be renamed?
Also, changing a name is not without cost; not only will all the field guides need to be rewritten, there is also the difficulty of connecting old observations under the previous name with the new name.
Lastly, by no means everyone will use official names; officially I may be watching a Great Skua harass some Black Guillemots, but I will tell my companions to look at the Bonxie attacking the Tysties!
Don’t take this to mean that no names should be changed; Scott’s Oriole does strike me as one that has no right to stay, but equally I don’t care whether we call them Raphus cucullatus, Didus ineptus, Dodos or Giant Tasty Pigeons; I just wish they were still extant!

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

And is the Humboldt Penguin named directly after the man, or indirectly by being named after the Humboldt Current? Does the Current need to be renamed?
Also, changing a name is not without cost; not only will all the field guides need to be rewritten, there is also the difficulty of connecting old observations under the previous name with the new name.
Lastly, by no means everyone will use official names; officially I may be watching a Great Skua harass some Black Guillemots, but I will tell my companions to look at the Bonxie attacking the Tysties!
Don’t take this to mean that no names should be changed; Scott’s Oriole does strike me as one that has no right to stay, but equally I don’t care whether we call them Raphus cucullatus, Didus ineptus, Dodos or Giant Tasty Pigeons; I just wish they were still extant!

Well said !

 

[Tim May]

And is the Humboldt Penguin named directly after the man, or indirectly by being named after the Humboldt Current?

I believe that Meyen named the penguin in honour of Alexander von Humboldt i.e. it was named directly after the man, not the ocean current.

 

[amur leopard]

I'm all for making birding and Conservation more inclusive and it is in fact a core belief and value of mine.

I will always be mindful and fully committed towards the inclusion of Afro-Brazilians indigenous peoples and working class Brazilians in conservation here.

But I believe the name change thing and obsession with semantics to be a total waste of time and only an issue in Anglosphere countries and on social media.

If you have evidence that it isn't then please share as I would be interested in reading more.

Ultimately I don't really care though as regardless of the name of a North American or European species and if it changes or not the most pressing issue is Conservation of said species.

You seem to be wasting rather a lot of time arguing against it .

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

You seem to be wasting rather a lot of time arguing against it .

Regrettably yes against your definition
of inclusion which I think is erroneous and I've provided what I think are well reasoned criticism of why I think this.

There is another definition of inclusion which I believe is far more constructive and progressive and which I believe would genuinely be a catalyst for change instead of a fruitless game of Scrabble.

Moreover yes I believe it's necessary to question and critique the assumptions of these kinds of arguments which are becoming more and more pervasive and divisive.

We should strive to look critically and question / scrutinize all aspects of the world and society around us and we should be able to disagree or provide criticism if we feel this is necessary

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

Because to be totally frank it's just another waste of time IMO.

Fight actual current racism fight against current species extinctions and fight against current neocolonialism.

Which is not to say be ignorant of the historical context of past centuries or to condone or justify colonialism or racism or elitism or a European centric view of the world quite the opposite actually.

But be mindful of the fact that there are real and worthwhile and genuinely revolutionary battles to be fought and then there are those that academics love to squabble over but that are colossal time wasters.

The problem is if you want to acctually fight racisim and acctually try help to conserve endangered species. You have to do more then type on the internet. Many people want to "help the world" and "change it in a better way" without doing any of the work needed. The typical example would be the people who want to stop global warming. While in the same time fyling to vaccation mutible times a year, eating factory farmed meat every day being the newest cloths and phones and fighting nuclear energy.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

The problem is if you want to acctually fight racisim and acctually try help to conserve endangered species. You have to do more then type on the internet. Many people want to "help the world" and "change it in a better way" without doing any of the work needed. The typical example would be the people who want tomorrow stop global warming. While in the same time fyling to vaccation mutible times a year, eating factory farmed meat every day being the newest cloths and phones and fighting nuclear energy.

Yes exactly and I agree.

I'm sure the people involved in this movement have the best intentions and want to change the world for the better.

But I personally struggle to see how anything like that could have a tangible real world impact on inclusion in birding or Conservation or against racism.

There are examples of bird watching groups and clubs that have been formed in deprived inner city communities with a predominant demographic of African Americans in the USA and in the UK with the Afro-Caribbean community and the same here in both inner city and rural areas with Afro-Brazilians.

I believe there are similar programs in the Dominican Republic by two NGO's and a general move to inclusion in other parts of the Caribbean such as many English speaking islands and Cuba also does well in terms of inclusion too but in a general systemic way.

Those kinds of initiatives and a general drive towards inclusion of people of different racial or ethnic groups within birding and bird Conservation in my opinion are the way forward unlike this name change thing.

 

[Jurek7]

This movement to 'decolonize birds' seems to have died out among actual ornithologists, so it is strange to see it smouldering here.

I hoped that somebody notices that it would be imposing own ideology on others, something they claim to fight in others.

And Onychorhynchus coronatus is right, important aspect is diversion. Since it is much easier to change names than to fight real racism, such moves attract those not willing to do real action, and those who oppose real action, but cynically hope that fight over words will replace it.

Unfortunately, any actual work for betterment of the society is usually much more difficult, dirty and costly.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

This movement to 'decolonize birds' seems to have died out among actual ornithologists, so it is strange to see it smouldering here.

I hoped that somebody notices that it would be imposing own ideology on others, something they claim to fight in others.

And Onychorhynchus coronatus is right, important aspect is diversion. Since it is much easier to change names than to fight real racism, such moves attract those not willing to do real action, and those who oppose real action, but cynically hope that fight over words will replace it.

Unfortunately, any actual work for betterment of the society is usually much more difficult, dirty and costly.

Yes exactly and I agree with everything you've said here.

If you take the example of Alexander Von Humboldt for example there are many South Americans and Mexicans who would take issue with white or black North Americans or Europeans telling them to remove the honorific from species or his name from institutes etc.

Many people from this area of the world would also take issue with him being labelled as a colonialist or a racist because he is actually synonymous with everything that isn't and that is opposed to those prejudices.

It would be just an imposition of people (albeit a woke one) from the global North on people of the global South telling them what to do and think which is rather colonialist itself.

The whole argument IMO really in 90 % of cases belongs in an academic seminar in a university and not to be taken seriously elsewhere.

 

[amur leopard]

If you take the example of Alexander Von Humboldt for example there are many South Americans and Mexicans who would take issue with white or black North Americans or Europeans telling them to remove the honorific from species or his name from institutes etc.

Many people from this area of the world would also take issue with him being labelled as a colonialist or a racist because he is actually synonymous with everything that isn't and that are opposed to those prejudices.

No-one is labelling Humboldt as a colonialist - the issue arises as you try and draw the line between which honorifics should and which shouldn't be replaced, and so the easiest solution is to have rid of them across the board - people like Humboldt will retain the legacy they have, just without the honorifics, which are, in my opinion, superfluous and an odd remnant of days gone by.