R
rwc101
Guest
How many people have put up with places named after racial slurs and Confederate traitors because your feelers get hurt when they're changed?
Haaland nominated to lead Interior
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
- Status
How many people have put up with places named after racial slurs and Confederate traitors because your feelers get hurt when they're changed?
i mean it's just sorta a double edged sword. lotsa things could certainly use a rename. but in my mind it does go too far sometimes. i mean god forbid a school is named after abraham lincoln anymore.
but whatever, at the end of the day, the name of public lands/places means almost nothing to me unless the name - or new name - also affects my ability to access, recreate, and hunt on it somehow.
so if haalands goal is rename stuff while changing my ability to hunt on it, i will start to have a real problem. otherwise, more realistically, i will only, at most, occasionally roll my eyes at some things people want renamed
but whatever, at the end of the day, the name of public lands/places means almost nothing to me unless the name - or new name - also affects my ability to access, recreate, and hunt on it somehow.
so if haalands goal is rename stuff while changing my ability to hunt on it, i will start to have a real problem. otherwise, more realistically, i will only, at most, occasionally roll my eyes at some things people want renamed
You hear the famed, "Ahwahnee" Lodge in Yosemite was pressured to change their name to The Yosemite Lodge? Ahwahnee Indian defined as, "Deep Grass Valley". Sure, offensive.
From Negro Creek to Wop Draw, place names offend
Thousands of places across the United States still saddled with names that are an insight into our divisive past, when demeaning names given to areas settled by ethnic or racial minorities were recorded on official government maps and often stuck.www.nbcnews.com
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
Ah yes... The Merchant of Venice hails Shakespeare to the core...
On the topic side... I see Muir on the chopping block. Heck, his own organization dis-avowed him already... John Muir Trail of the past.
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,603
This has been covered to death on the forum. If one wants to create more division and annoy the shit out of people who cherish American history then by all means attack the names of everything. I didnt name it and nobody still alive named hardly any of these things. I personally don't care what anything is named. What I do care about is that people are that petty about something that honestly does not affect anyone in anyway unless they let it and just wanna cry cause everything is built around identity politics. Take this nomination for example. The headlines all read "historic" appointment by Biden. Its not historic at all she is just a human being like me and the 1000s of others who have been nominated for different positions throughout history. But it can't be just that way it has to be historic and identity driven. Its disgusting....everyone says they want equality well true equality is treating everyone the same no matter who they are. Not treating everyone differently based on their identity.
I guarantee the administration and powers to be were emailing and texting back and forth on who can they nominate that would be historic identity wise...qualifications were definitely not considered the #1 priority. Identity was the #1 priority for the nomination. She might be amazing and do the best job ever for us all but thats not why she was picked.
Rant over.
R
rwc101
Guest
Good thing I wasn't the one who brought it up. Does make it weird that you responded to me though. I also enjoy history to the extent that I got a degree in the subject.
I care more about the hypocrisy of the "it's just a name, why are you so upset?" people who get upset about names.
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,603
I'm not trying to be a hypocrite about it. It's my opinion and I'm not hiding it that getting upset about a name is petty and ridiculous. I wish my life was so easy and perfect that I had time to petition congress or whoever on behalf of some Italians to change the name of a mountain. Look at me im a good person I care about stuff. And its well documented that it's not usually the people who should be upset about a name pushing the name change. It's people with an agenda getting upset for them because it helps their agenda. It has zero to do with the name for these people and everyone knows that. If you think they are acting in good faith thats ok and we can disagree on that.
R
rwc101
Guest
I agree with a lot of that.
BuzzH
Well-known member
We make up our names for stuff where we hunt...grouse ridge, the knob, snowberry, fred's road, tower, etc etc. Couple good things...nobody is offended and only my family and a few close friends know where we're talking about.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Corporations rebrand all the time, I have to keep this extensive look up table on our server so we can keep them all straight... is what it is... renaming stuff has never bugged me Muir or otherwise.
I finished this book a while back, Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI... interesting and relevant to Haaland's appointment.
Folks want a the senator from Montana to be from Montana... head of dept Interior be a Native American...
Neither her gender nor her racial background in and of themselves mean she will do a good job in the post.
We shall see, I reserve the right to rant if I disagree with future positions or activities.
"true equality is treating everyone the same no matter who they are" - 100% agree, the argument, is that the playing field has been slanted far to long in one direction, you need to slant it the other way a bit to let it even out. When there are 98 men and 1 women in the senate the gender of last senator is important. When it's 50 men 49 women, sure the gender of the last 1 is completely irrelevant.
MTLabrador
Well-known member
My dad and I do the same. Chokecherry canyon, the burned ridge, grizzly park. We’ve killed a lot of game in chokecherry canyon.
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,603
See i dont look at it like that. I see it as is the human being qualified for the job or not. If they are they will either do a good job or not do a good and get fired. Equal number of men and women or races in jobs does not equal good or bad. Qualifications and results regardless of gender or race equal good or bad in my opinion.
But i do understand what you are saying and your point.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
On this sidebar:I care deeply about place-names, and believe they in fact, do matter. My first internship was working on the Geographic Names Information System during the time that offensive toponyms were being phased out (squaw, n-word, etc)
For the most part I think it is good. There are place-names that are chiefly mean-spirited and we should ax those, but it can go too far, and we should watch out for those instances. If anything we should be pushing for the replacement of duplicate place names. It is a crime against the soul of our geography, and therefore ourselves, that there are 25 Black Buttes in Montana, and 170 Spring Creeks, and 26 Twin Lakes. *Charts attached*
As to Haaland, I could give a salient chit what demographic subset over which she has no control that she belongs to. I think the focus on that is ultimately irrelevant. I am hopeful and am rooting for her, and will reserve my criticisms and praise for when and if they are necessary.
For the most part I think it is good. There are place-names that are chiefly mean-spirited and we should ax those, but it can go too far, and we should watch out for those instances. If anything we should be pushing for the replacement of duplicate place names. It is a crime against the soul of our geography, and therefore ourselves, that there are 25 Black Buttes in Montana, and 170 Spring Creeks, and 26 Twin Lakes. *Charts attached*
As to Haaland, I could give a salient chit what demographic subset over which she has no control that she belongs to. I think the focus on that is ultimately irrelevant. I am hopeful and am rooting for her, and will reserve my criticisms and praise for when and if they are necessary.
marshman
Well-known member
Trojan Horse? The guys more like a complete ass in my book.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Not necessarily a bad thing... gotta remember they co-opted it
R
rwc101
Guest
I'd file this one under "change anyway."
This.
"Too far" is the challenge. That line, even amongst many whom I believe reasonable, with firm disagreements, do not hold a common, "too far" opinion.
Case in point:
I support removing obvious / blatant names though the "Too far" is a very vague line. The challenge I have with a politician (yes, she is/was a politician) who openly declares to change names within our DOI National Parks, Monuments, land / water bodies, will move a council to flow with the vocal fickle mob...
As before, we could do worse. I know that was the theme shared with Zinke's appointment.
I believe the fight from the DOI and Blue ribbon Executive Branch has strengthened to counter the plight of others for federal land transfer to State. I'm happy with that.
I am concerned the numerous tribal fights for hunting in our National Parks now has a very massive ally (Haaland)...
Example: The corruption within the Blackfeet tribe (Browning, MT Reservation general area) has long since fought to hunt our Glacier National Park and Bob Marshal Wilderness (ya, ya - USDA). I'm opposed to it simply due to constant disgusting hunting actions that's hit public news - none the less what we don't know. The Feds have stepped in twice to clean up the Tribal Law Enforcement corruption, etc though if there is a righteous plight for such... I may not like it though I support due process.
With the SCOTUS rulings, such as Herrera and the Oklahoma cases, I believe there is a massive jolt of support within Tribal motivation. With Haaland at the helm of the DOI, this jolt has amplified significantly.
T'is the season all. I may disagree with some here. Others may agree. Glad we have less personal attacks of the past and more content debate to agree / disagree. I like some of what she brings though will await how much damage may follow. Best to our new DOI Sec.
get-n-birdy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 198
Can't even agree with the voices in my head half of the time. Will give her a chance and see how her actions affect what I personally value, then go from there. Doubt her beliefs on heaters [aka guns] will have much if any affect on how she'll do her new job. Don't think she can amend the 2nd amendment from that position or really have enough power without running into checks and balances or major push back. Don't care about gender or race, if she does a good job or bad, will give her credit for the good and crap for the bad. Wish her well and hope she at least curbs some of the over use of resource extraction and intrusion on public land. Am all for cheap fuel, but am also for protecting resources from the grip of unregulated extraction. Own land down stream of the copper mines plans close to the bwca, but also have in-laws in the area up there that support them. Feel like a person without a political party. Don't agree with either side on everything. Highly appose any infringement on wild places, as well as the 2nd amendment. Half the time it feels like I'm rooting for the wrong team no matter who is in charge of whatever it is.
Sincerely,
A disenfranchised public land and 2nd amendment supporter.
Sincerely,
A disenfranchised public land and 2nd amendment supporter.
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 346
I am more optimistic about this DoI nomination than several previous ones or even other potential picks Biden could have made. I think it is a positive and historic step to have a Native American in this position that has so much responsibility for Indian trust lands and assets. Frankly, I've found many Tribes share a similar vision to what public land hunters would like to see in federal land management and so if her ancestry is indicative of those views then I think she will be a great pick. I'm sure like any nominee there will be areas and issues where I disagree - but I largely see her as a friend to public land hunters. I also think it would be an error to read too much into her ancestry - we're all Americans and I have full confidence someone committed to public service is not doing so simply to advance the causes of a small minority of the population.
Some of the chatter I've heard elsewhere about this pick involves hunters expressing frustration towards Tribes and their exercise of treaty rights for harvesting deer, elk etc. For some, it's a lack of understanding, and for others they believe its simply unfair. I do not see a Sec. of Interior having much influence on these harvest issues. As we've seen recently, the adjudication of treaty rights is often a matter for SCOTUS. While some might lament the pick of a Native American Sec Interior and what that might mean for tribal harvest issues, I would point to the current SCOTUS make-up. Herrerra was decided 5-4...I don't think we have a good sense of how ACB would/will rule on treaty rights issues but it is not unreasonable to assume a case like Herrerra could have gone 5-4 in favor of WY if the 9th justice were ACB instead of RBG.
Interesting times ahead, but one thing I firmly believe about this historic selection of a Native American cabinet secretary, we as public land hunters probably have a whole lot more mutual interests with the many federally recognized tribes in this country than we do extraction and energy industry insiders who have occupied this post in the past.
Some of the chatter I've heard elsewhere about this pick involves hunters expressing frustration towards Tribes and their exercise of treaty rights for harvesting deer, elk etc. For some, it's a lack of understanding, and for others they believe its simply unfair. I do not see a Sec. of Interior having much influence on these harvest issues. As we've seen recently, the adjudication of treaty rights is often a matter for SCOTUS. While some might lament the pick of a Native American Sec Interior and what that might mean for tribal harvest issues, I would point to the current SCOTUS make-up. Herrerra was decided 5-4...I don't think we have a good sense of how ACB would/will rule on treaty rights issues but it is not unreasonable to assume a case like Herrerra could have gone 5-4 in favor of WY if the 9th justice were ACB instead of RBG.
Interesting times ahead, but one thing I firmly believe about this historic selection of a Native American cabinet secretary, we as public land hunters probably have a whole lot more mutual interests with the many federally recognized tribes in this country than we do extraction and energy industry insiders who have occupied this post in the past.
- Status
Similar threads
