More Than a Name: Decolonising Wildlife
Vancouver’s official city bird is the small but charming Anna’s Hummingbird. This bird’s namesake was a 19th Century Italian Duchess – Anna Masséna. These hummingbirds are not found in Europe, so the chances are Anna never even saw one in flight. And yet, the whole species unknowingly trills through the sky carrying her banner.
The colonial practice of giving birds eponyms (names after a particular person) was frequently used to uphold a person’s legacy, curry favour, or directly honour them. In North America alone, there are over 150 bird species with eponyms.[1] They include the Stellar’s Jay, the Scott’s Oriole and the Townsend’s Warbler. And this practice is not reserved just for our feathered friends. Many mammals, reptiles and fish are named eponymously, too. The mammals include the Abert’s Squirrel, the Heaviside’s Dolphin, and the Schmidt’s Monkey.[2]
This post provides a short case in support of renaming animals currently named eponymously. It defends two ideas that should inform the renaming process. First, renaming prevents the improper glorification of racist or colonial figures and so it is morally required to create a social environment necessary for human equality. Second, renaming as a process productively reorients us to each animals’ importance – independent of human history.
Why the Colonial Roots of Eponyms Matter
Last year, the American Ornithological Society (AOS) decided it was time for all eponymous English common bird names to be changed, following a petition from a group called Bird Names for Birds. The AOS reports that their decision gave rise to several objections on social media. To see why this issue matters, two of these ‘preservationist’[3] concerns are worth briefly considering: that renaming will waste resources, and that it erases history.
First, preservationists might think that renaming is a waste of resources because it is an insufficiently weighty issue. However, this does not follow. The AOS’s reasoning mainly focused on the harmful or exclusionary nature of eponyms.[4] Although eponyms are offensive, there is also a deeper and more important reason we should rename.
To see this, the philosophical literature on monuments of racist and colonial figures can be helpful. Much like racist statues, the eponymous names of animals have an expressive function. The way we remember carries significant meaning in building both a national and a global narrative about our value relative to one another. Because of this, eponyms express contempt for stigmatised groups.
For example, by referring to the Scott’s Oriole according to their current namesake we implicitly honour the 19th century US military general Winfield Scott. Scott was responsible for the 1838 military order that began the Trail of Tears (the forced evacuation of Cherokees from their ancestral homeland). This implicit honorific expresses contempt for indigenous nations wronged by colonialism.
The same follows whenever a racist or colonial figure’s name is used as an eponym. Colonial eponyms undermine the social environment needed for us to relate to one another as equals. In contrast, renaming animals actively opposes wrongful social hierarchies. This is because it helps to generate a social environment which reflects our equal value back at us. This is especially important for members of stigmatised groups.
Second, preservationist might think that funds would be better spent on what they contend are more important issues. Although there are a range of justice-relevant issues, this does not mean that funds ought never to be spent on renaming. A proportional compromise could be implemented in which the process of renaming receives limited funds alongside other causes, and extra funds should also be raised from elsewhere.
What’s more, renaming might be a way to encourage people to adopt more caring attitudes to wildlife, as we will see below. This is something which might result in more well-funded conservation practices down the line.
Finally, renaming does not mean erasing history. If anything, it means adopting a more accurate perspective on it. One reason for this is because giving an animal an eponym was never about preserving a truthful historical record. It was instead a political tool to celebrate a single individual or group.
Another reason is because there are many ways that historical events might be remembered, including through museums, books and documentaries. Unjust historical events ought to be remembered in ways that affirm their tragedy, rather than expressing honour for figures implicated in them. Remembrance ought not to disregard the social conditions that reflect our equal value back at us.
Moving Beyond Human Hubris
There are also independent reasons why animals are not fitting objects of human honour in the first place, even if the humans or events we honour were genuinely praiseworthy.
Because names carry a social meaning and a legacy, an animal’s name should reflect that animal’s own legacy, not human hubris. In other words, naming should be based on wonder for and in inspiration of the creature that is named. Animals have their own subjectivity, and their lives are important independent of human involvement.
One thought here may be that most animals couldn’t care less what they are called – because they simply cannot. If they could, the Common Crow would no doubt caw her complaints at being given such an ordinary name. But naming animals for animals ought not to be premised on the idea that the animals themselves will directly care about what they are called.
Instead, renaming is a way of reorienting ourselves to our fellow creatures in ways that do not solely focus on human lives, or the meaning that animals might have to humans. This also carries an expressive meaning – but this time it is one that should encourage us to adopt a more curious, caring, and respectful attitude to other animals. This is sorely needed given that nearly 3 billion birds have been lost since 1970.
Furthermore, renaming need not simply be about educating the public on animals and their instrumental importance in a healthy ecosystem. It is also about developing better attitudes towards other animals for their own sake. Our fellow creatures fill the natural world with beauty and wonder. But their lives are not merely a part of our story; they have value to those that live them.
We ought not to stop at the AOS’s decision to rename bird named eponymously. This anti-colonial movement ought to be extended to all other animals, too. It is high time all colonial eponyms were replaced with more appropriate names that affirm each animal’s value for their own sake.
The Process of Renaming
What might this look like? First, it might involve incorporating indigenous knowledge, much of which has been actively erased by colonialism.[5] This requires us to engage with oral storytelling, directly involve indigenous communities, and reclaim histories that are genuinely being erased. Second, it might mean choosing animals’ names based on knowledge about unique characteristics, which honour that animal’s own value. In many cases, there is likely to be considerable overlap between these two ideas. Finally, renaming should actively involve the public. For instance, the public could vote on a selection of names suggested according to the above criteria.
Rather than seeing Vancouver’s beautiful city bird whizz past and pausing to wonder ‘who even was Anna?’, we might see her in a new light – one which recognises that she has value beyond human hubris. Her story did not begin with Anna, and it ought not end there.
[1] The group Bird Names for Birds have produced a list.
[2] See the Eponym Dictionary of Mammals.
[3] The term ‘preservationist’ is from Bell (2022). See: ‘Against Simple Removal: A Defence of Defacement as a Response to Racist Monuments’, Journal of Applied Philosophy.
[4] Eponyms are directly offensive, and can exclude those from stigmatised groups from connecting to and enjoying learning about wildlife. For a philosophical account of this harm, consider Timmerman’s (2019) account of the harm of confederate monuments, ‘A Case for Removing Confederate Monuments’.
[5] The AOS has suggested renaming the Maui Parrotbill to the Kiwikiu, a local Hawaiian name that ‘would acknowledge the importance of considering Indigenous names’.
