Hey, there! Log in / Register
Manchester-by-the-Sea park unnamed for 19th-century racist
By adamg on Sun, 02/27/2022 - 1:29pm
The Trustees of Reservations has announced it's renamed Agassiz Rock as the Monoliths, because while Louis Agassiz, for whom the property was originally named, was a pioneering geologist, he was also a flaming racist, even by 19th century standards.
H/t Greg Cook.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Good
I know Cambridge renamed the Baldwin School. Did the city change the area's name too?
By the way, John Judge, now in charge of the Trustees is a good, honest person with a great heart and a person who knows how to lead while building consensus.
Good question
There are a lot of things named after this family. Some are named after his daughter. Do we know about her views on human rights? And is the neighborhood named specifically for him, or for the whole family?
And of course there is no shortage of great folks to honor instead if things need to be renamed.
According to Wikipedia …
….. Pauline Agassiz Shaw served as president of the Boston Equal Suffrage Association for Good Government and supported prison reforms.
The PA Shaw school
On Norfolk St is a fantastic elementary school named for Pauline. It’s a fitting namesake.
The PA Shaw school is my
The PA Shaw school is my voting location and my bus stop for work is in front of it. No way they'll rename it. It's a neighborhood fixture.
The PA Shaw school is my
The PA Shaw school is my voting location and my bus stop for work is in front of it. No way they'll rename it. It's a neighborhood fixture.
The PA Shaw school is my
The PA Shaw school is my voting location and my bus stop for work is in front of it. No way they'll rename it. It's a neighborhood fixture.
Retroactive renaming is possible
King County, Washington was "renamed" to honor MLK in 2005, rather than its original namesake, William R. King. Seems like the Trustees could have also chosen to honor Pauline Agassiz Shaw instead.
Anodyne names, erasing history and concrete
The name The Monoliths is boring. Where names are concerned that is milquetoast. At least something like The Great Erratics is more descriptive and poses some fun in the name.
A San Francisco story: Louis Agassiz' bust was part of San Francisco's City Hall building prior to the 1906 earthquake. His bust fell into the concrete. The locals said that he was better in the concrete than in the abstract.
One other item, maybe not popular. Completely changing the name to something that is so anodyne pushes erasing the positive legacy of Agassiz. He did for geology what Darwin did for biology. Yanked its study and understanding out of the superstition of religion. In terms of his beliefs about people of different skin color he was not outside the norm. In his ignorance he used the word race as it was defined and accepted.
The greater sin is that we continue to propagate the lie that there are different human races by using the term.
There are no human races. No more than there are races among trees or dogs. Homo sapiens are a species. The one that has managed to not destroy itself since dividing from Neanderthals (current nuclear posturing by Putin not withstanding).
Agassiz made a contribution to the history of science that is invaluable. To erase his name is to expect that human beings are saints and are not allowed to have faults.
Really?
I do not think this is how we "propagate the lie".
Homo sapiens has no races
"Races" among humans are as arbitrarily defined as "nations". No matter what the color of our skins may be, our distant ancestors were black. They came from East Africa.
Both race and nation states
Both race and nation states are social constructs. Social constructs do in fact exist - their existence shapes our lives on a daily basis.
Question for you
What kind of tea do they serve in your ivory tower?
He had a good run, now it's over
The man was lauded for several generations after he died. Anyone and everyone who knew him has been dead for generations. His name is not being erased from his scientific accomplishments, just random locations which are not relevant to what he did that was noteworthy. His legacy where it matters (science) will live on, with context.
Well said.
Place names change over time. For all kinds of reasons.
I like the name Agassiz, don’t associate it particularly with him and was sorry it was being taken away from a place I’ve been to many times.
But I do like the new name and that it describes the boulders themselves rather than associating them with some human. Does everything have to be branded?
Your argument settles it for me. Thanks.
Funny
All the people I know who "don't see race" are ... white!
I wonder why that could be? Easier to deny the reality of racism when you don't personally experience it, maybe?
[note: I have no idea what Daan's background is - just making note of how this is such a very white and hackneyed refrain]
You never met my old Jamaican and very black neighbor.
Most outspoken racism denier I ever met. He particularly doesn’t like American born blacks.
Hmm...
Sounds like he definitely sees race.
How do you deny racism while
How do you deny racism while being vocally racist?
You found a black man who hates black men?
How very nice for you. I see you point to him to justify your own views often.
Agassiz and Darwin
Agassiz attempted to prevent Darwin from doing what he did for biology; he was a staunch creationist, and an adamant opponent of the theory of evolution. This article calls him a geologist, but his primary work was as a zoologist. He was enormously influential in that field, and produced an enormous body of work, most of which is now undone, as it was based on entirely untenable theories of biological classification. It was these theories that led him to his extreme position on the biological classification of human races. He was one of the leading proponents and theoreticians of scientific racism. Whether or not we choose to condemn him as a human being on moral grounds, his fame was as a scientist, and he can certainly be judged on the quality of his work as a scientist. Most of his work has been overthrown, and he should suffer the fate of scientists who were admired until they were discovered to be wrong; he should be forgotten.
Agassiz was a creationist
He swallowed the full gamut of creationist bullshit, in an age when Darwin's research had already revealed the reality of evolution.