Folks ignorant of history make some ironic decisions.
Recently, both the national Audubon Society and its New York chapter have contemplated removing Audubon's name from their names, having (apparently) recently discovered that Audubon owned slaves. The national society elected to retain the name; the New York chapter is removing it. The New York chapter seems oblivious to the rather more odious "York" in their name (and in that of city and state as well). The "York" was James II, Duke of York and brother to Charles II later king in his own right. New York was named for James after a James-organized expedition stole New Amsterdam from the Dutch.
For the irony: In around 1660, James founded the Royal African Company, with assistance from King Charles and London merchants. The company was created to enjoy a monopoly on all British trade with the African coast, including that in silver, gold, ivory and slaves. James was governor of the company until 1688, and its largest shareholder. That would have made him one of the largest slave traders of his day, not to mention (further irony for a conservationist organization) one of the largest ivory traders. Audubon was small potatoes by comparison.
The recent push to remove disreputable names from our lexicon seems rather double edged. While, as it were, dishonoring some of the dishonorable, it allows us to avoid reminders of our history, warts and all.
Perhaps modern Germany has a better idea. Shortly after the war, Germans contemplated demolishing the Nazi concentration camps, removing painful reminders of the Holocaust. On consideration, the kept some, turned them into museums, and encouraged the public to visit. They have also, more recently, installed metal plaques into sidewalks, identifying homes where Jews once lived - thus giving neighbors a daily reminder.
Those who do not remember history are likely doomed to repeat it.
Comments