After all the other issues have been addressed, feathered offenses now pose a problem.
Leftists and activists are currently exposing their weak grip on a narrative. They routinely ask the question: “Can conservatives even properly define ‘woke’?” This is a weak response that is an indication of the effectiveness of the movement against it. This was used to define Critical Race Theory. It was also used when schools rejected the curriculum.
This lame attempt may have some traction because leftists continue to add to the woke cultural movement (their term), making it more difficult to define succinctly while the properties are still obvious. Although woke ideology can mean many things to different people, most people know what it means when they see it. The Washington Post is a prime example of this. Recently, a deflated outrage was reported.
One nefarious practice was to look into the past of historical figures or institutions and find racist elements. This was done in order to justify social cancellation. The National Audubon Society, a highly respected avian organization was a recent example. The National Audubon Society, a renowned bird conservation organization, has been around for 118 years. But now, it is being attacked for its name.
John James Audubon, a naturalist, painted birds to help preserve threatened animals and create records. Audubon found dozens of new species, and his collection in “The Birds of America”, is still considered an important source. However, Audubon was a slave owner and this means that he should be removed from the historical record. The Audubon name has been removed from the organization.
These remarking lectures would be laughed at if we lived in more hysterical times. But we don’t have such sanity anymore. The National Audubon Society is currently considering whether to strike the nameake naturalist from the group. It is good to report that it was decided that the name will remain after a vote by its leadership.
Dino Grandoni from Washington Post seems to be bothered by this, detailing the events and writing some regretful prose. Grandoni, despite the fact that the organization spent nearly a whole year trying to resolve the issue internally and with people outside of the outfit, describes the recent decision as being reached via a closed-door vote. This suggests some dark intentions.
This comes as nearly half of the organization’s chapters in the region have already pledged to remove his name from their titles. It is part of a larger reckoning about the U.S. environment movement’s history and entrenched racism.
What’s the deal? Is the entire environmental movement racist? We find out that yes. We’ll see how to describe plumage in a moment.
26 members make up the Audubon Society board. They voted for the name to be retained, but there is internal conflict. There are 11 regional societies that make up the National Audubon Society. Half a dozen have made the decision to remove his name from their heading over time. Three of the three board members who were currently serving resigned following the vote. Grandoni is not happy with this dose of common sense.
This announcement highlights the difficulty of trying to correct a racist past and still keeping a history that has made Audubon a household name for protecting birds. Audubon’s internal debate mirrors a wider reassessment on race and the American environmental movement.
This infecting wokeness is so annoying because it defies the high-mindedness of those who are pushing this agenda. To redefine the definition of a woman, scientists claim to be able to ignore chromosomes. To shame others into pandemic totalitarianism, research and data are ignored. Even bird research can be affected.
This is an organization that is rooted in biology and field study, but these components are given a secondary role to emotional fretting. What effect did slave ownership have on more than a century’s worth of conservation success? Half a century later, Audubon was given the title of the society and his name has become synonymous with conservation of avian species. Today, however, we can forget all that and get worried about unrelated details from 170 years ago.
This is not an isolated case in this field. Be prepared for racist birds! Many species carry poisonous monikers. This can have a serious impact on…well, almost everything. Wallace’s Owlet is problematic because it was named after a naturalist who used n-words in his writings. McCown’s Longspur is also named after a Confederate general. But, what do you care? If this is your main focus, and not the birds you pledged to help, then maybe you’re in the wrong field.
This is reflected in the thinking of a spokesperson for one of the Audubon chapters who has since dropped his name. Judy Pollock, the Chicago chapter’s president, stated that carrying John James Audubon’s name is not ethically sound. She admits that she has a new realization about serving herself, but it was not fully thought out.
Pollack’s chapter tried to remove any association to the long-standing attributed naturalist but it hasn’t been able to rebrand. The Chicago chapter doesn’t have a new name as it stands. She said that it was difficult to find a name that reflects all that the name “Audubon” did.
It’s brilliant. It is brilliant. You react quickly to appease a section of the country that will eventually not support you. In the end, you are no longer an expert in your field. It will also be difficult for donors to write checks to an organization without a name. Pay to the Order (as yet to determined) won’t be filling coffers at the same level of revenue.