Racist plant names, common, scientific

evo

evo

Been here much more than a while
Location
My Island, WA
I’m increasingly getting annoyed with racist plant names in horticulture/arboriculture.
Let’s make a list and do better.

‘Indian bean’
‘Chief Joesph pine’
‘Digger pine’
‘Shawnee brave’
 
evo said:
Let’s make a list and do better.
Click to expand...

I agree. Changing scientific names has a structured naming system. This takes time and energy. Every branch of science is being affected by this.

We all can choose to use common names that aren't hurtful.

I'm looking forward to the list of common plant names to consider.
 
Tom Dunlap said:
I agree. Changing scientific names has a structured naming system. This takes time and energy. Every branch of science is being affected by this.

We all can choose to use common names that aren't hurtful.

I'm looking forward to the list of common plant names to consider.
Click to expand...
What concerns me most as common names can easily change is trademarked or patented names of cultivars. Those seem to be the biggest hurdle.
 
Just because a name alludes to a different culture why does that make it bad? Obviously there are some that are out of place and should go...but, for example, from the OP, what's wrong with Chief Joseph (seems to honor a significant historical figure). Did he ever oppose that name?

Shawnee Brave... is it offensive to call the tribe brave?
 
I think we should just leave it alone. It was named by someone. If you find a plant that is unknown, you can name it whatever you want, and in 50-100 years someone will think it is not acceptable and want to rename it as well. Ideas change over time and we can't constantly keep renaming everything as it happens. It isn't racist to name something after an Indian (excuse me...Native American). Next thing you will want to change the name of Indiana. There are 12 states named after Indian tribes. We going to change them because of that. That in itself seems really racist. Lets rename those 12 states after white people.
Enough of this new wave, make everything politically correct bullshit.
 
Shadowscape said:
I think we should just leave it alone. It was named by someone. If you find a plant that is unknown, you can name it whatever you want, and in 50-100 years someone will think it is not acceptable and want to rename it as well. Ideas change over time and we can't constantly keep renaming everything as it happens. It isn't racist to name something after an Indian (excuse me...Native American). Next thing you will want to change the name of Indiana. There are 12 states named after Indian tribes. We going to change them because of that. That in itself seems really racist. Lets rename those 12 states after white people.
Enough of this new wave, make everything politically correct bullshit.
Click to expand...
It's hard enough keeping up with all the botanical name changes as taxonomy evolves. I swear, common names are more consistent half the time lol
 
I heard a story recently about the proposed changes in the bird world. Big doings. I thought the argument was extremely sound- not just that these birds are named after some random dudes, but often the names say nothing about the birds and sometimes are misleading. So the new names will describe characteristics of the birds- what they look like and what they do. Common sense common names, and really nothing political about it.

I think approaching it from a social justice standpoint is a waste of time and fraught- but approaching it from the perspective of more accurately describing a thing is pretty smart.
 
Stumpsprouts said:
I heard a story recently about the proposed changes in the bird world. Big doings. I thought the argument was extremely sound- not just that these birds are named after some random dudes, but often the names say nothing about the birds and sometimes are misleading. So the new names will describe characteristics of the birds- what they look like and what they do. Common sense common names, and really nothing political about it.

I think approaching it from a social justice standpoint is a waste of time and fraught- but approaching it from the perspective of more accurately describing a thing is pretty smart.
Click to expand...
I can respect that approach although I sorta think it’s a waste of effort. Having said that I’m not that invested in it either way to be passionate about either option. I do very much agree with the social justice statement. Your approach does make sense as I wonder if the blue footed boobie has either blue feet or boobies.
 
Steve Connally said:
Your approach does make sense as I wonder if the blue footed boobie has either blue feet or boobies.
Click to expand...
That name probably wouldn’t change as the Booby very much has extremely blue feet.

Shadowscape said:
There are 12 states named after Indian tribes. We going to change them because of that. That in itself seems really racist.
Click to expand...
Oh I would agree with you here. Semantics are sort of useless.

The thing that makes a lot more sense and would actually have a positive effect is to hand over (some or all) state / federally owned land to tribes. It’s theirs anyway, since every treaty we wrote was broken. That’s also just common sense. Renaming a bean? Not gonna change the world
 
ATH said:
Just because a name alludes to a different culture why does that make it bad? Obviously there are some that are out of place and should go...but, for example, from the OP, what's wrong with Chief Joseph (seems to honor a significant historical figure). Did he ever oppose that name?

Shawnee Brave... is it offensive to call the tribe brave?
Click to expand...
It’s pop culture from 1950…. I can guarantee First Nations folks wouldn’t condone naming a cultivated mutation after themselves.
Read ‘the golden spruce’, for many reasons, but it will give you some perspective.


Granted it’s unknown if these specific cultivars have the similar cultural significance.
 
Stumpsprouts said:
That name probably wouldn’t change as the Booby very much has extremely blue feet.


Oh I would agree with you here. Semantics are sort of useless.

The thing that makes a lot more sense and would actually have a positive effect is to hand over (some or all) state / federally owned land to tribes. It’s theirs anyway, since every treaty we wrote was broken. That’s also just common sense. Renaming a bean? Not gonna change the world
Click to expand...
While we are at it, let's give Texas back to Mexico. Then we wouldn't have to worry about the Mexicans crossing into Texas. And we could give Florida back to the Seminoles and we wouldn't have to listen to the Don't Say Gay crap from DeSantis, and Trump could be their Chief. I'm liking this, "Give The Land Back" idea.
 
Shadowscape said:
While we are at it, let's give Texas back to Mexico. Then we wouldn't have to worry about the Mexicans crossing into Texas. And we could give Florida back to the Seminoles and we wouldn't have to listen to the Don't Say Gay crap from DeSantis, and Trump could be their Chief. I'm liking this, "Give The Land Back" idea.
Click to expand...
Right, obviously the ship has sailed for the most part.

The idea with returning stewardship of federal lands to tribes is gaining popularity because these lands aren’t developed (aside from a little bit of this, a little bit of that), so people would not be displaced.

I don’t think anyone is going to take Florida in its current condition. Damaged goods! (Cue boxes of oranges thrown at my face)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom