I rarely post here, but would like to register my concern about the about
overgeneralizations about different generations that seem to be occurring.
Regardless of age or generation, we all share a common love of birds and
the environment. It would be better if using that as a starting point.
Beverly CD
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 2:21 PM Jr Mikulec via Tweeters <
tweeters at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
I love taking conservation advice from the generation who oversaw this
>
decline:
>
>
From stateofthebirds.org
>
>
"Three Billion Birds Lost
>
>
1 in 4 breeding birds have been lost from the United States and Canada in
>
the past 50 years.
>
70 Tipping Point Species in the United States
>
>
These 70 species have collectively lost 2/3 of their populations in the
>
past 50 years, and are on track to lose another 50% in the next 50 years.
>
Downward Trends Across the Board
>
>
Birds across the U.S. show downward trends in every habitat except in
>
wetlands, where comebacks of waterfowl show the power of funding and policy
>
investments."
>
>
>
Thanks guys, keep it up!
>
>
>
Sincerely,
>
>
A young Birdwatcher
>
>
On Jun 25, 2024, at 9:57 AM, Dennis Paulson via Tweeters <
>
tweeters at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
I'm sorry, but I have to respond to these extreme statements.
>
>
>
No one who I know is "okay with keeping others out in order to maintain
>
the status quo." That inflammatory statement just doesn't hack it in
>
reality. Just about all of us old white males (and there are plenty of
>
females) derided by Steve and Carmelo are in complete agreement with you in
>
wanting birding and birds to be open to anyone who shows interest. But I
>
guess you are just writing about bird names.
>
>
My argument is entirely that changing bird names is the lowest-hanging
>
fruit that entails making no effort at all in encouraging others into our
>
world, while in fact causing chaos and confusion out of proportion for the
>
good it will do.
>
>
For over 60 years, I have never done anything but encourage others to be
>
interested in birds and the environment, and I have never had any
>
indication that it was the names of the birds that kept anyone from that
>
interest. I still don't think so, and I doubt very much that it was an
>
issue until you have raised and promoted it. You surely have a better idea
>
of the real reasons.
>
>
As has been repeatedly said, why don't you put your energies into making
>
the world a better place for everyone? I and so many others fail to see how
>
changing bird names offers any solution to that. Your arguments are
>
generic, very persuasive, but they don't really present any evidence
>
relating bird names to sociological realities.
>
>
Even worse, how dare you use the term "racist" on any of us who believe
>
that bird names shouldn't be changed? With your virtue signaling and
>
castigating of older birders and ornithologists, you are the ones causing
>
this rift in our community that may never be healed.
>
>
Dennis Paulson
>
Seattle
>
>
On Jun 25, 2024, at 9:00 AM, Carmelo Quetell via Tweeters <
>
tweeters at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
Steve, thank you for taking the time and energy to highlight some of the
>
nuances and impacts of the continued opposition to the AOS name change via
>
Tweeters. To your points:
>
>
In the op-ed
>
<https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/bird-names-should-be-about-birds-not-people/> I
>
authored, many people were upset when I wrote:
>
>
"As of now, the majority of birders are white and have fewer years ahead
>
of them than they do behind them. In a world of technology addiction and
>
rampant nature deficit disorder, can the birding community tolerate the
>
cost of remaining a Good Ol' Boys Club? Most importantly, can our feathered
>
siblings continue to bear the burden of human chauvinism?"
>
>
I was called an ageist and a racist in the comment section for making
>
these observations but look at what demographic (at least on the Tweeters
>
listserv) has been most vocal in their opposition and resistance to change
>
(even though this isn't the first time there has been naming changes).
>
Also, look at how many announcements there have been on Tweeters in the
>
last 6 months alone regarding the passing of people in the birding
>
community. Who is going to stand in their place in defense of the birds and
>
the land if the community is pushing younger and non-white people away with
>
their own personal biases, resistance, and vitriol?
>
>
Sadly, some people in the birding community are okay with keeping others
>
out in order to maintain the status quo. While there are a variety of
>
reasons why this is so, we must remember that while it is not always about
>
race, it is never not about race. Colorism and White Supremacy live in
>
every single person, regardless of that person's skin color or ethnicity.
>
We are all imperfect, with our own wounds, traumas, biases, and life
>
stories.
>
>
We are only being asked to take a small step in a new direction. When you
>
had to start calling an Old Squaw a Long-tailed Duck, did you die? When you
>
had to call a Canada Jay a Gray Jay, only to later call it a Canada Jay
>
again, was your life ruined? Also, Audubon was the kindest person to birds,
>
even though he painted them beautifully. It will be okay.
>
>
And if you are genuinely concerned with making changes that are going to
>
actually lead to morescholarship
>
<https://www.audubon.org/news/systemic-barriers-hinder-bird-research-say-124-latin-american-ornithologists>,
>
funding, conservation, and inclusivity...will all of you who oppose the AOS
>
name changes instead support an effort to include Puerto Rico and Mexico in
>
the ABA Area? Would you use your contacts and membership in the ABA to put
>
this up for a vote and support it?
>
>
Puerto Rico has been a U.S. colony since 1898. Puerto Ricans have been
>
U.S. citizens by birth since 1917. Puerto Ricans have fought and died in
>
every major U.S. military engagement since WW1, and they even fought in
>
naval battles on the side of the American colonists in the Revolutionary
>
War. The sole tropical rainforest in the U.S. National Forest System (El
>
Yunque) is in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is home to over 300 bird species (18
>
endemic), many of which we regularly celebrate witnessing in the
>
continental U.S.
>
>
Mexico is part of North America, same as Canada. Portions of the historic
>
northern border of Mexico were as far north as some towns in Oregon. Why
>
does the Chihuahuan Raven count towards your Big Year total as long as it's
>
spotted on the northern side of the Rio Grande?
>
>
Again, how many of you are genuinely willing to stand for a change that
>
would be more beneficial to birds and future generations of birders than a
>
name change?
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
>
*From:* Tweeters <tweeters-bounces at mailman11.u.washington.edu> on behalf
>
of Steve Hampton via Tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
>
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:35 AM
>
*To:* TWEETERS tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
>
*Subject:* [Tweeters] Inappropriate posts - from the thread Amerigo
>
Vespucci
>
>
In the absence of any intervention by a Tweeters administrator, I will
>
reply.
>
>
These posts against proposed bird name changes - usually with incorrect
>
information and speculation regarding scope, costs and benefits, and other
>
aspects - are inappropriate here and do harm to the birding community and
>
the use of Tweeters as representative of the birding community.
>
>
Without trying to convince anyone why bird names (and organization names)
>
matter, I'll point out that they seem to matter to a lot of people.
>
Regardless of the rationale, there are three basic facts about this issue:
>
>
1) The demographic breakdown on this issue is stark. Most younger people
>
and people of color support the changes. Nearly all of the opposition comes
>
from white people over 65. This tells me, from a diversity, equity, and
>
inclusion perspective, there is a "there" there. We should pay attention to
>
why this is.
>
>
2) Due to historical biases and discrimination in opportunities and
>
privileges, the former group are the exact same demographics that are
>
under-represented in birding; and the latter are far more likely to be
>
today's field trip leaders, esteemed ornithologists, and conservation
>
organization leaders. This is evident and much has been written about it.
>
>
3) Having the latter group publicly dismiss the former group (on any
>
issue) is both insensitive and reckless when it comes to the future of
>
birding. Using Tweeters as a safe space for the latter group to openly
>
gripe and plan opposition is "gatekeeping" - public actions that preserve
>
the status quo and drive certain newcomers away. Intentions don't matter
>
here; impacts do. This is why so many younger people and people of color do
>
not participate in Tweeters, certain other social media groups, many
>
birding organizations, and their field trips.
>
>
I'm dubious anyone will learn from this post, or be inspired to learn
>
more. And I'm dubious about my continued participation in Tweeters.
>
>
I do wish everyone good birding,
>
>
>
--
>
Steve Hampton
>
Port Townsend, WA (qatáy)
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
Tweeters mailing list
>
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
>
http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
Tweeters mailing list
>
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
>
http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
Tweeters mailing list
>
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
>
http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>