Should We Stop Naming Public Lands After People?

Article Summary: 

• The American Ornithological Society is removing the names of people from all North American bird species and in my opinion, the hard-line approach should also be applied to public lands and waters. 
• For one, people are seldom, if ever, highlighted in the Indigenous names of natural features — rather, titles describe physical attributes or cultural significance. 
• Additionally, it’s impossible for the entire public to agree on who is “worthy” to be memorialized given varying interpretations of morals and the value of one’s contributions.  

Late last year, the American Ornithological Society (AOS) announced that it will change the titles of all North American birds named after people, omitting namesakes completely. 

“There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today,” said AOS President Colleen Handel in a written statement.

The bulletin named one example: the thick-billed longspur. Formerly known as McCown’s longspur, the name honored John P. McCown, an amateur naturalist who later became a Confederate Army general. 

Removing the names of controversial figures from landmarks, public lands, and so forth is a hot topic that sparks a heated debate. 

Some view the movement as an act of healing and inclusivity. Others see it as an erasure of history and disregard for the good such persons contributed. 

Arguably, AOS leans towards the former stance. It cites these reasons for its decision: 

• It found a case-by-case approach to be intractable.
• Eponymous names are poor descriptors.
• The use of honorifics itself reflects exclusion in scientific participation.
• There are other, better opportunities to commemorate historical or living figures who have made important contributions to ornithology.
• Alternative methods of naming nature that do not imply ownership should be used.

In my opinion, name-free titles are also the best solution when we look to rename public lands and waters. Here are three reasons why:

#1: Many Natural Features’ Indigenous Names Reflect Physical, Geographic, or Cultural Attributes — Not People

Doug Herman, formerly a senior geographer at the National Museum of the American Indian, wrote in Smithsonian Magazine, “For American Indians, place names always tell something about the location, they aim to express the essence of the place, or its dominating characteristic or idea.” 

His article focuses on the renaming of Denali which was known as Mount McKinley from 1917 to 2015. From the locally-spoken Koyukon language, Denali translates to “the great one” — an appropriate name for North America’s highest peak. 

Other Athabaskan languages are also prevalent in the region, whose names for the mountain translate to “the tall one” and “mountain-big.” As the National Park Service notes, “‘McKinley’ was incompatible with the Athabaskan worldview because they rarely name places after people.”

Herman affirmed this by saying, “Indians have viewed such commemorative names as inappropriate: humans are too small, too fleeting and insignificant to have places named for them.”

Indeed, many indigenous names for places refer to physical attributes, geographic locations, and cultural significance. Comparatively, early settlers’ naming conventions largely spotlight prominent figures in United States’ history. 

The Mount McKinley and Denali case is just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of examples. Other famous sites include:  

• Colorado’s Pikes Peak, which honors American explorer and Army officer Zebulon Pike. The Ute people called it Tavá Kaa-vi, meaning “sun mountain,” because light first hits the summit at sunrise. [Source]
• Washington’s Mount St. Helens, which honors British diplomat Baron St. Helens. The Yakima tribe’s name, Loowit, translates to “keeper of fire.” The Klickitats called the peak Louwala-Clough, meaning “smoking mountain.” [Source]
• Alaska’s Mount Blackburn, which honors U.S. Senator Joseph Clay Stiles Blackburn. The native Ahtna people refer to it as K’ats’I Tl’aadi, meaning “the one at cold waters.” [Source]

In recent years, some places have returned to their indigenous titles. For example, in 2019, the Nevada Board of Geographic Names voted unanimously to rename Jeff Davis Peak, which memorialized the president of the Confederate States of America. 

Now, the peak’s official title is the Shoshone name Doso Doyabi, meaning “white mountain.” Local tribal organizations spoke in favor of the change per an article by Reno Gazette Journal. 

Other times, however, Indigenous groups’ naming preferences are disregarded. The former Harney Peak in South Dakota is a prime example. 

While it no longer commemorates a violent racist and alleged murderer, its new name, Black Elk Peak, didn’t sit well with some members of the native Lakota tribe. They wanted to restore its original name, Hinhan Kaga, meaning “making of owls,” which describes the mountain’s owl-like rock formations.  

Black Elk, on the other hand, refers to a famous Lakota holy man. Board members noted that it’s not customary for the Lakota people to name geographic features after individuals. 

Additionally, as reported by the Rapid City Journal, “Several board members said they did not want to risk the possible later emergence of historical facts that might disqualify an individual as an appropriate namesake.” 

This leads me to my second point… 

#2: Societal Views on Moral Correctness Change with Time, Knowledge, and Access to Resources

“Morality is not rigid or monolithic,” stated an article written by University of Melbourne (UoM) researchers. 

It continued, “As cultures evolve and societies develop, people’s ways of thinking about good and evil also transform.” Further, the researchers noted that age, gender, personality, and political beliefs affect how morality is viewed and determined. 

Religion, in my opinion, is also a major factor. I grew up in a strict religious household and attended Christian schooling for thirteen years. Right and wrong is something I’ve grappled with for as long as I can remember. 

In my short lifetime, my views on morality have varied drastically. Now irreligious, I no longer respect the same figures. I vote differently than my younger self would have. I advocate for and disagree on subjects based on my ever-growing body of experiences and knowledge. 

I might even look back at this article in five months or fifty years and disagree with my current stance. 

As an individual, I’m sure you’ve also experienced significant changes in the way you interpret right and wrong, too. As concluded by the UoM researchers, societies evolve in a similar way. 

And that’s the problem with naming places after a person. Their actions which occurred decades or centuries ago are being judged by today’s standards of ethics, and will be judged by a future interpretation. 

Don’t get me wrong, there are certain grievances that weren’t morally justified then, nor now — genocide, for one, isn’t up for moral debate. 

But consider the debates that occur in our society today. How will future generations judge prominent figures’ actions as they relate to climate change, civil rights, and so forth? Did they leverage their privilege for those less fortunate? Did they dedicate their time and resources to the greater good? 

Further, who determines what is “good”? As an example, let’s take a look at the former Olympic Wilderness, which was recently renamed Daniel J. Evans Wilderness after U.S. Senator Dan Evans in 2016. 

As explained in the bill’s press release, “Evans was the lead sponsor of the Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988 which designated over 1.5 million acres of wilderness areas.” He also co-sponsored the Washington Wilderness Act of 1984, protecting over one million acres of national forest land. 

But one of his career’s greatest debates revolved around the North Cascades Highway, which well-known Seattle environmental activist Harvey Manning called “a travesty” given its purported intention for mining and logging. [Source]

Evans later agreed with Manning and the North Cascades Conservation Council, advocating to protect what became North Cascades National Park. But what environmental and economic duress has this level of access caused? 

In addition, Evans was a politician and naturally, he wasn’t wholly accepted by the public. Depending on your views, you may disagree with his policies. 

And if you do, do you feel welcome in the Daniel J. Evans Wilderness — federal land intended to be enjoyed by all? 

#3: Public Lands and Waters Should Not Be Named After People Because the Entire Public Will Not Agree on Who is “Worthy”

Let me be clear in that Evans, based on my research, is in no way comparable to the heinous figures whose namesakes appear in the titles of other places. I believe he stood for a lot of good things — but that is my opinion. Again, some may disagree.  

I use Evans as an example because his moral aptitude is less definitive than others. Comparatively, it’s easier to agree that figures who incited violence, committed acts of racism and/or sexism, and so forth do not deserve to be memorialized. 

But as noted by the American Ornithological Society, a case-by-case approach is simply unmanageable. It wrote in a statement, “We felt that developing a workflow to decide who is ‘worthy’ of having their names preserved would likely lead this endeavor into extremely fraught debates.” 

After all, who has the authority to determine who is “worthy” of being commemorated? Who can say if a particular person contributed enough to a particular topic or issue? Who can say they were morally upright, when ethics are not finite? 

The entirety of the public cannot come to such a consensus. And if the entirety of the public cannot agree, then I think public lands and waters should leave individuals — past, present, and future — out of the naming debate. 

***

In closing, I’ll share what could be expanded into a fourth reason for my stance: even without possessive phrasing, a name can imply ownership. 

After all, what really is the difference between “the Smith house” and “the Smith family’s house”? Consider that when reading the names of mountains, rivers, and other geographic features. 

I quote Herman: “The land is eternal; it owns us, we do not own it.”