Chicago Audubon Board Member John Elliott shares his thoughts about recent naming controversies.
Goodbye, McCown's longspur. Hello thick-billed longspur.
The North American Classification and Nomenclature Committee (NACC) of the American Ornithological Society (AOS), the specialists granted the privilege of assigning “official” names for our birds, has dumped John P. McCown. He was an amateur ornithologist who first collected the bird while an army officer in Texas, and later commanded several Confederate armies. According to NACC’s statement on naming, “English bird names that clearly denigrate any group or class of people, or which would be generally considered offensive by present-day standards, may be changed for this reason alone.”
The McCown name was removed because he was a Confederate leader. Yet slaveholder names remain. Most problematic may be William Clark, honored as a leader with Meriwether Lewis of the expedition that added much knowledge and many descriptions to science. Clark's slave, York, was a vital member of the corps, but Clark repeatedly denied York's call for freedom after return. Clark went on to an, at best, mixed record as Superintendent of Indian Affairs. He was said to be more sympathetic to Native Americans than many others of his time, but held the office during Jackson's destructive policies of displacement. Bird Names for Birds (BNB) says that Clark was an abusive slaveholder.
Depending on who is counting, 140 or more birds of North and Central America are named for people – that is, white males. The exceptions are five or six birds that bear the first names of women, most likely not honored for their contributions, but because of their relationship to father or husband. Alexander Wilson and John Cassin get five birds each! Most birders know Scottish-born poet and amateur naturalist Alexander Wilson (1766–1813) who began publishing American Ornithology; or The Natural History of the Birds of the United States. (Wilson's impressive achievement inspired John James Audubon to publish his much better-known Birds of America (1827-38.)
Who can tell me why Cassin deserves the honor? Without much effort, it is hard to learn the full story behind bird names. But I have found it an interesting history lesson that accompanies my love for learning about birds. Did you know that Bonaparte's gull was named for a relative of the emperor, and Lincoln's sparrow is not named for the president?
So how do we decide which names should remain and which ones should go? Should we just throw out the lot? All these men were of privilege in their time in a society built on slavery and a war on indigenous people.
Should we honor Rev. John Bachman, who ministered to slaves and, unlike most of society at the time, believed that Black and White people are in fact one species? According to BNB, though, he did not extend that belief to equal treatment of Blacks. John Kirk Townsend, another multiple honoree, was from an abolitionist family. What about ornithological giant, Wilson? BNB notes that he took unfair advantage of indigenous people and their knowledge.
We are the Chicago Audubon Society, chapter of a 120-year voice for birds and conservation. Audubon owned multiple slaves. Might we rename not just the birds (only two) but our organization? See this article in the New York Times about Black Chicago artist Kerry James Marshall and the inspiration he gets from Audubon, and read National Audubon’s statement here.
Has McCown’s, or any other honorific name, been a stumbling block for new birders? Names are symbolic, but not the most significant of issues in these fraught times, and are just one aspect of the language we use. But replacing honorific names with more interesting and useful descriptive names seems a small but necessary step. We all need to examine all our words for bias. And as for honoring known racists with the names of our precious birds - I say, throw them all out.