To address the first part, I'd suggest that you engage with some of the marginalized birders who are advocating for the name change. I am not one of them, so any explanation I can offer isn't first hand. Discourse around this issue has been ongoing for some time, so there's ample sources on the internet. The Bird Names for Birds site is probably a good place to start:?
If it doesn't really affect people, then what is the harm in making the names more descriptive, and therefore more useful? While this might mean changing some other names for birds, I'm not sure that's entirely a bad thing. I might propose ring-billed duck, because the neck ring is difficult to see when the duck isn't in hand.?
To the second part, I think I already addressed that, as did the linked Sibley blog post. If we have a blanket rule against naming birds after people, then we don't need to come up with a bright line test of who is "good" and "bad". Nor do we have to worry about that line changing in the future.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2023, 12:50 PM Daniel Bastaja <danielbastaja@...> wrote:
> Dale. You mentioned how much the current names affect some people. How much exactly does it affect some people? I think most people don't know or care where the name came from. I can¡¯t think of any bird name that is derogatory per se. Yes¡ we should not name birds after slavers, or exploiters, but do people have that much of a problem with Steller, or Say, or Anna, or Wilson? Are there people out there that really feel different about themselves, who they are or what they are doing in life because of the name of a bird?
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 12:05 AM Dale Floer <dfloer@...> wrote:
> Thanks for sharing. It's good to finally see some forward progress on this issue, given how much the current names affect some people and how little effect changing them has to everyone else. That part seems like an easy choice to make. What to call them instead? Not so much, though I am partial to "Stellar Jay".
>
> I know some people aren't going to like this, but I'm not sure I've ever heard a compelling reason why notto fix the names. I've seen vague arguments about forgetting/erasing history, but that seems to misunderstand how history tends to be remembered. If that were really the case, I assume indigenous names would be preferred, as they'd have a longer history, which doesn't seem to be the case.
>
> I also think it's wise to not name any birds after people, it neatly sidesteps the issue of whether or not a person is "good" or "bad", and it gives a chance to chose descriptive names.
>
> -Dale Floer
> Burnaby
>
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023, 10:56 AM Pamela Zevit via <pamela.zevit=[email protected]> wrote:
> American Ornithological Society Will Change the English Names of Bird Species Named After People. ¡°There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today. We need a much more inclusive and engaging scientific process that focuses attention on the unique features and beauty of the birds themselves,¡± said AOS President Colleen Handel, Ph.D., a research wildlife biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska. ¡°Everyone who loves and cares about birds should be able to enjoy and study them freely¡ªand birds need our help now more than ever.¡±
>
> Pamela Zevit RPBio | Biodiversity Conservation Planner
>? T 604.590.7254
> Check out how we are conserving biodiversity in Surrey
> As a second generation settler, I am a privileged guest working on the shared traditional lands (t¨¦m:¨¦xw) of the s?my¨¢m? (Semiahmoo), sq??c?iy?a?? (Katzie), K?ik?????m (Kwikwetlem), q??¨»:n????n? (Kwantlen), Qiq¨¦yt (Qayqayt), Sc??wa¦È?n (Tsawwassen) and x?m?¦Èk??y??m (Musqueam).
>? ?
>
>