Rachel and all, I must admit that I've grown very weary of the innumerable number of posts on this topic, but am extremely grateful for these comments, which give us all a better understanding of the process.
*Linda Hodges* *Colorado Springs* On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 7:08 PM Rachel Kolokoff Hopper <[email protected]> wrote: > The underbelly of the decision…worth a read if you want to more fully > understand. > > From Van Remsen, now former member of the NACC (North American > Classification Committee.) If you don’t know who Van is, Google him. Posted > here with permission from Van. > ======= > These are my formal comments to AOS leadership from back in early July > from my position as Acting Chair South American Classification Committee. > They made me swear to keep these secret until the final decision was made. > ======= > Comments to AOS Council from J. V. Remsen (Chair and founder, South > American Classification Committee, and member since 1984 of North American > Classification Committee) > > • Diversity and inclusion. The English Bird Names Committee report is > antithetical to the AOS mission with respect to diversity and inclusion. > AOS includes many people who either like eponyms for their own sake or > would rather not meddle with them for the sake of stability. These members > have had little opportunity to express their views. Currently, only 4.2 % > of SACC English names are eponyms. Many supporters of this tiny “market > share” are afraid to speak out for fear of being called racists (as has > already happened to Kevin Winker when he published his paper analyzing > eponym comments in a Washington Post article.) To anyone who saw that > recent AOS-sponsored “symposium” (actually a hybrid pep rally X > fundamentalist big-tent revival meeting) on bird names , it was clear that > contrary views were not welcomed. > > • Broader impacts. I am acutely conscious of my White Privilege status > that has helped my get where I am. However, censoring all eponyms smacks > of an attempt to erase the cultural heritage and scientific accomplishment > of “Western” culture in the Western Hemisphere. Extremists on the > political right will be grateful to the AOS for providing beautiful > propaganda for their agenda. > > • Financial impacts: Because AOS names are used by federal agencies, the > cost to taxpayers of those name changes needs assessment. USFWS, USDA, > NPS, etc. all use standardized AOS names, and this has a trickle-down > impact on state and local agencies. They already have to deal with some > instability due to changes in species limits, but 150 immediate changes > represents a new level of change. Just in the bird world, think about > 4-letter banding codes: 150 would have to be changed and 150 would become > obsolete. > > • Trivialization of AOS. A typical reaction to the controversy from the > general public and scientists in other fields is (to paraphrase colleagues > and friends outside the bird community) “of all the problems in need of > solutions, the AOS is focusing on THIS!” It’s a bad look for AOS. > > • Negative impact. The EBNC report ignores the potential impact that their > recommendations will have on countries outside the Global North. If AOS > adopts the proposal, it will be seen as a heavy-handed edict from the > Global North without consideration of negative impacts. I have provided to > President Handel a list of eponyms derived from past or present widely > respected members of the ornithological culture of many South American > countries, most of them citizens of those countries. > > • Global South. If everyone on SACC thought that canceling all eponyms > would be an effective way to promote interest in or conservation of birds > or remove obstacles to inclusion of under-represented groups, then we would > be in favor of it. There is no direct evidence for any tangible, positive > effect, other than to appease the BN4B people. In fact, I predict that the > fallout will have the opposite effect on many in South America; see > Pethiyagoda (2023) and Jost et al. (2023). I like to think we as a > scientific society (AOS) base our policy changes on evidence, not rhetoric. > > • Justice. All but one SACC members are in favor of a case-by-case > analysis to remove eponymous English for which continued use of that eponym > is harmful to people or bird conservation. The argument that the simplest > thing to do is delete all of them ignores the counterpoint that the > simplest solution of all is to not remove any of them. Yes, the process > will be messy for many reasons, but we have a sample size of 1 (i.e. > McCown) that suggests that it can work, that NACC is open to that process, > and that name changes are possible through NACC (and SACC) protocols. If > all accusations of “criminal” activity were easy Y/N decisions, then > democracies would not need their complex judiciary systems. To do > otherwise is eerily reminiscent of historical purges by fascist, communist, > and extreme religious groups. > > • Bird names for birds. The ENBC report takes it as a given that its new > names will help people learn bird identification. I regard this a classic > False Premise and will provide a separate document on this. The bottom > line is that birds names aren’t for birds – they are for people. > > • Shared vision. This entire controversy saddens me. If there were a way > to quantify the moral/political views of NACC and SACC members in some sort > of 3D multivariate space, I suspect that resulting cloud of points would be > statistically indistinguishable from those of the EBNC or even BN4B. We > would be on the same side of virtually any other issue. But here we are, > tearing each other apart over English bird names. > > • Personal Considerations. If AOU Council adopts EBNC recommendations, > then I will resign from AOS and NACC, and remove SACC from AOS. This could > be interpreted as a threat to leverage the decision but is intended only as > a full disclosure FYI. I cannot be a part of issuing an edict from the > Global North to the Global South. At a strictly personal, emotional level, > I cannot be a part of cancelling Ted Parker, John O’Neill, Gary Stiles, and > others, or several personal heroes Charles Darwin, Emilie Snethlage, Helmut > Sick, and others. > > • Trying to end on a positive note. The good effect of the EBNC report is > that it has stimulated all of us to think more aggressively of concrete > ways to improve diversity and inclusion in AOS, particularly from the SACC > side (see suggestions from SACC members) in terms of South Americans. > > And finally Van posted: > > Rather than respond individually to so many inquiries through Facebook > messages, emails, and texts, here are comments that can be shared widely. > > Even non-bird people have likely heard about this: the American > Ornithological Society decided to begin the process of changing the common > names of ALL birds named for people -- you can Google the announcement for > details. Except this was NOT the American Ornithological Society per se > but its leadership -- a tiny % of its members. In fact, they kept this a > secret from the membership that elected them until it was a done deal, with > a carefully orchestrated press release. We on the North American > Classification Committee of AOS were among the only ones contacted back in > June about this and were given about 2 weeks to respond. AOS leaders > demanded we keep this secret from everyone, including all other AOS > members. Every member of the Classification Committee was strongly opposed > to a blanket purge; we all favored due process, i.e. a case-by-case > consideration of the names based on people accused of terrible things; we > advocated consultations with professional historians to make sure the facts > were correct. We were ignored. (Myself and at least one other member have > quit so far, in protest.) > > The AOS prides itself on Diversity and Inclusion and in being a welcoming > society. Clearly this does not apply to those who like eponyms, either for > the window these name provide into the history of ornithology or > commemoration of those who built the AOS. Nor does it apply to anyone who > wants to keep them just because they dislike the instability that changing > 150 names would inflict. Those 150 names are only 4.2% of the standardized > AOS names, yet AOS leadership -- who I now refer to as the Cancel Cabal -- > does not tolerate the views of those who don't want most of them changed, > which is certainly more than 4.2% of AOS membership. So much for > "welcoming" and "inclusion". Would retaining most of that tiny 4.2% have > been too much to ask, if only for tolerance of different opinions? > > It was pointed out by many on NACC that such an initiative would > trivialize the AOS and lead to ridicule along the lines of "of all the > issues birds are facing, THIS is what the AOS is focusing on!" > Predictably, the public ridicule has already begun. Jimmy Kimmel > ridiculed the AOS in his monologue. Now the AOS, not just its leadership, > looks like a bunch of clueless fools. > > Additional: The Decree has been issued. NACC has also been removed from > any say in English names, even on splits it institutes, possibly in > retaliation. The only possibility for undoing this would be for a revolt of > Fellows and EMs, but anyone opposed to the Decree will be labeled anything > from insensitive to racist. > > Everyone -- Please don't perpetuate the confusion on where the decision > came from. NACC had nothing to do with it -- we unanimously opposed it. Nor > is it from the AOS per se. The Edict is from AOS Council, as if it is > speaking for all its members. > ----------------------- > Rachel Kolokoff Hopper > Follow me on iNaturalist <https://www.inaturalist.org/people/2339591> > rkhphotography.net <https://www.rkhphotography.net/> > [email protected] > Ft. Collins, CO > > -- > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Colorado Birds" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/cobirds?hl=en?hl=en > * All posts should be signed with the poster's full name and city. Include > bird species and location in the subject line when appropriate > * Join Colorado Field Ornithologists https://cobirds.org/CFO/Membership/ > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Colorado Birds" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/EBF502A2-0B17-408D-98B8-88D95329613F%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/EBF502A2-0B17-408D-98B8-88D95329613F%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cobirds?hl=en?hl=en * All posts should be signed with the poster's full name and city. Include bird species and location in the subject line when appropriate * Join Colorado Field Ornithologists https://cobirds.org/CFO/Membership/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/CABW16Tm4DjgbA%3DYWghsOOOe%2Bh8i%2BxHCzrbVokLHbKd34W0H1Yw%40mail.gmail.com.
