You make very good points. Being awakened and attuned to serious social issues was and remains a good thing, as first intended. I'm not sure of a better word, however, to identify the movement sweeping across our culture and agree that my issue is with the transformed version of woke, not the original. I don't question that the intentions of the authors were good, either, but there are more things to consider than potentially hurt feelings. Having a few battle scars of my own, I appreciate that occasional clashes of ideas are necessary and desirable for the advance of science, but that pretty much precludes science from being a safe space, nomenclature notwithstanding.
Highly ironic that some comments fixate on and project indignation at the usage of “woke” in this essay, thereby proving the author’s point that a name (or word) to be useful should be stable. Those offended perceived the same usage of the word, i.e., the modern usage of “woke,” as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary: aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice), and identified as U.S. slang. The essay would have lost its clarity if the author, for fear of offense, had substituted “shazbot” for “woke.” Wokeness is the appropriate descriptor for the justification for calls to expunge any species name that might reference something that offends someone somewhere, anywhere. Scientific dialogue is stifled by angry masses, overtaken by perceptual disturbances and offensensitivity, shrieking for the heads of anything that offends them. Even offensive nomenclatures have historical contexts from which we can learn, and hopefully do better ourselves. How ironic that some natural historians want to cancel history. Recall also that as taxa evolve, so do word meanings. This is a good article.
This isn't a good article, I think your choice to leap in on 'woke' people detracts massively from the points you make .
When people attack 'woke' I don't know that they really understand what that word was supposed to mean. They have the far right farage/braverman/maga version in their minds and frankly those people use it as a way to twist the world to their view, that there's this bunch of people who want, with malace, to destroy everything of history.
For the record I would call myself woke, and do it with pride. But I don't think that Dahl should be changed, I think the words he uses should be explained in the context of history in new printings with an addendum or something while leaving them as originally written.
As for the species names, it's not the straight argument you make out. The article I read is called 'Restoring indigenous names in taxonomy' & seems to be saying that things should be using their original names, ones that are 100s of years older than our colonial ones.
What you're saying is whatever the name was that happened to be first published is the one we should stick to, but in doing that you're saying original indigenous names that have been used for centuries longer should be ignored? Can you imagine how this would work for the west?
This is certainly a discussion to be had. But by using the 'woke' trope, you've left me completely unable to share this article to anybody. Because it comes across really badly imo, and this has nothing to do with 'woke' or with 'cancel culture' or with anybody being offended... it's an idea to give history back if anything... Just not western history which is the only history the 'antiwoke' are interested in.
Thanks for sharing your view. Prior to Linnaeus' system in the mid 18th century names for species were unstable and chaotic and science suffered significantly. Any system creating stability must have a starting point and for zoological nomenclature it is January 1, 1758. The article I was responding to proposes to rename established scientific names that someone may find offensive and they are the self-appointed arbiters of which names offend. For the advance of knowledge, stability has proven incredibly important and should be protected in most instances, and history has shown that science flourishes when we nurture freedom of thought and expression. Their point was not the one you raise, that common names existed for many species before the time of Linnaeus which is, of course, true. For reasons of survival, I have no doubt that among the very first words spoken by humans were names for animals they encountered daily, so there would be no end to unearthing ever-earlier common names for at least large and common species. History is frequently unfair in its attributions, such as Darwin getting so much more recognition than Wallace, Lamarck and others who were incredibly important in developing the idea of evolution, too. Although I have fundamental disagreements with several of her points, Carol Yoon's book "Naming Nature" is nonetheless very well written and raises a number of interesting things about names. You might enjoy it. I respect your opinion, but remain opposed to the idea of imposing current sensibilities on past generations, limiting tolerance for freedom of thought, or rewriting history to salve our feelings.
You make very good points. Being awakened and attuned to serious social issues was and remains a good thing, as first intended. I'm not sure of a better word, however, to identify the movement sweeping across our culture and agree that my issue is with the transformed version of woke, not the original. I don't question that the intentions of the authors were good, either, but there are more things to consider than potentially hurt feelings. Having a few battle scars of my own, I appreciate that occasional clashes of ideas are necessary and desirable for the advance of science, but that pretty much precludes science from being a safe space, nomenclature notwithstanding.
Highly ironic that some comments fixate on and project indignation at the usage of “woke” in this essay, thereby proving the author’s point that a name (or word) to be useful should be stable. Those offended perceived the same usage of the word, i.e., the modern usage of “woke,” as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary: aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice), and identified as U.S. slang. The essay would have lost its clarity if the author, for fear of offense, had substituted “shazbot” for “woke.” Wokeness is the appropriate descriptor for the justification for calls to expunge any species name that might reference something that offends someone somewhere, anywhere. Scientific dialogue is stifled by angry masses, overtaken by perceptual disturbances and offensensitivity, shrieking for the heads of anything that offends them. Even offensive nomenclatures have historical contexts from which we can learn, and hopefully do better ourselves. How ironic that some natural historians want to cancel history. Recall also that as taxa evolve, so do word meanings. This is a good article.
This isn't a good article, I think your choice to leap in on 'woke' people detracts massively from the points you make .
When people attack 'woke' I don't know that they really understand what that word was supposed to mean. They have the far right farage/braverman/maga version in their minds and frankly those people use it as a way to twist the world to their view, that there's this bunch of people who want, with malace, to destroy everything of history.
For the record I would call myself woke, and do it with pride. But I don't think that Dahl should be changed, I think the words he uses should be explained in the context of history in new printings with an addendum or something while leaving them as originally written.
As for the species names, it's not the straight argument you make out. The article I read is called 'Restoring indigenous names in taxonomy' & seems to be saying that things should be using their original names, ones that are 100s of years older than our colonial ones.
What you're saying is whatever the name was that happened to be first published is the one we should stick to, but in doing that you're saying original indigenous names that have been used for centuries longer should be ignored? Can you imagine how this would work for the west?
This is certainly a discussion to be had. But by using the 'woke' trope, you've left me completely unable to share this article to anybody. Because it comes across really badly imo, and this has nothing to do with 'woke' or with 'cancel culture' or with anybody being offended... it's an idea to give history back if anything... Just not western history which is the only history the 'antiwoke' are interested in.
Thanks for sharing your view. Prior to Linnaeus' system in the mid 18th century names for species were unstable and chaotic and science suffered significantly. Any system creating stability must have a starting point and for zoological nomenclature it is January 1, 1758. The article I was responding to proposes to rename established scientific names that someone may find offensive and they are the self-appointed arbiters of which names offend. For the advance of knowledge, stability has proven incredibly important and should be protected in most instances, and history has shown that science flourishes when we nurture freedom of thought and expression. Their point was not the one you raise, that common names existed for many species before the time of Linnaeus which is, of course, true. For reasons of survival, I have no doubt that among the very first words spoken by humans were names for animals they encountered daily, so there would be no end to unearthing ever-earlier common names for at least large and common species. History is frequently unfair in its attributions, such as Darwin getting so much more recognition than Wallace, Lamarck and others who were incredibly important in developing the idea of evolution, too. Although I have fundamental disagreements with several of her points, Carol Yoon's book "Naming Nature" is nonetheless very well written and raises a number of interesting things about names. You might enjoy it. I respect your opinion, but remain opposed to the idea of imposing current sensibilities on past generations, limiting tolerance for freedom of thought, or rewriting history to salve our feelings.
Oops--I see that it can be shared and I have done so.
I wish there were a way to share this on social media. it is something every scientist--and especially every systematic biologist--needs to read.