Should we use the original names for our mountains...?

riffraff2112

good talk.....not what I expected in health and fitness but hey, its interesting

Gisel2015

And what this question have to do with health and fitness? Me thinks that this question should be in the chit-chat section.

Azdak

Alatariel75 wrote: »

Rocknut53 wrote: »

There has been talk of renaming many of the landmark features in Yellowstone National Park because of the insensitivity of some names to Native Americans. Like Hayden Valley, where most of the buffalo hang out shouldn't be named after someone who promoted annihilation of the natives. Hayden was a geologist who explored much of the park (and was probably lucky to retain his scalp in the process). Yes, I understand how it could be offensive, but we shouldn't rewrite history because that history is offensive to some. Many of our local names have been changed, anything with "Squaw" in it became something different. Crazy Woman Creek in Wyoming, I'm sure there's a story there that offends someone! And the the Grand Teton...won't touch that one! It's a slippery slope that has no end if we choose to navigate it.

But, didn't history get rewritten when they were given those names a few hundred years ago? Up until then, they'd been named something else.

paperpudding

Rocknut53 wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

@Rocknut53

What do you think of the argument that a lot of the big peaks here are named for British generals who killed American soldiers during the Revolutionary War?

Does it really matter? I think in these days of political correctness people complain too much about too many things. Why not use these names to enhance our knowledge of the history, keeping the bad along with the good? It's not like we can or should go back and start over with a clean slate. Like @tomteboda said, "Politics and history alike are strange."

Yes I think it matters and I support changes here like Ayers Rock reverting to Uluru.

And, no, I don't see it as political correctness or too much complaining - one could see that in reverse - those objecting are doing too much complaining.
I think it is better to use those names to enhance acknowledgment of original owners of the land and their culture rather than history of the invading people - history doesn't just start from the beginning of invasion, you know.

And,no, of course we can't just re start with a clean slate - but I don't see that as an argument for doing nothing to acknowledge and restore original names or any other form of original culture or land rights.

And to the poster who was worried about cultural appropriation - that is more when people take over something in an inappropriate and mocking or imitation way - eg dress ups of native attire.
All the changed names, in Australia anyway, are done with consultation and consent of the indiginous people of the area.

mph323

Our local Mt. Diablo was surrounded by a number of indigenous peoples before the Spanish arrived, and had several different names depending on the language spoken. There's a perennial push by one individual to get the mountain renamed (he's offended by the diablo reference), and he's suggested various names, including Yahweh, Kawukum (a made-up name from the 1800's) and Reagan. I know you'll be shocked to hear that the United States Board of Geographic Names finds no compelling reason to make any changes.

If they ever do find reason to make a change, I would like to see it revert to the Ohlone name, Tuyshtak, meaning "at the dawn of time".

CSARdiver

tomteboda wrote: »

The process is already begun. I expect it's inevitable at this point, particularly with the proliferation of grievance politics.

For example, in Minnesota they're renaming Lake Calhoun (named for the Vice President, 1825 to 1832, under John Quincy Adams & Andrew Jackson) due to Calhoun's advocacy of slavery. The name is now Bde Maka Ska, a name conferred by the Dakota. It is speculated that they took the name from the Ioway when they moved into the area and pushed the Ioway out. Kind of ironic to me that we're unnaming things because colonialization was bad, but putting names into a language that was itself a colonizer.

Many locations are called different things by different tribal traditions because the languages are often different and more than one tribe/tribal group would inhabit an area simultaneously. So there is a degree of debate even about how to "revert" names even when there is some consensus to remove European names from things. Politics and history alike are strange.

I agree with this. I don't care, but care just enough to point out the hypocrisy involved.

I've never understood the benefit of passing judgement on the past based on the present moral interpretation.

I have several guide books and there's about a 50% break in the reference name Denali/Mt. McKinley. The information within the book remains the same regardless of what people refer to it.

yskaldir

What does this has to do with health and fitness?