What’s in a Name?
By: Jeff Valdivia
Tags: Politics, Advertising, History, Psychology, Racism

What’s in a Name?

Is there a better option than changing the names of our brands and institutions?

Photo by Nong Vang on Unsplash

Earlier this year, Quaker Oats announced the end of Aunt Jemima. The company said, “Aunt Jemima’s origins are based on a racial stereotype” and the removal of the name and logo represents a stride “toward progress on racial equality.”

Shortly thereafter, the Washington Redskins football team announced they would be dropping the word “Redskins” and their logo. Then, the Cleveland Indians baseball team said it would also consider changing its name.

Not to be undone, Princeton University renamed a programme and building formerly named after Woodrow Wilson. The University of Southern California changed the name of one of their buildings that was previously named after a president who supported eugenics.

That these names and brands are mired in the racism and hatred of the past is without question. Today, we are striving toward something better, so, understandably, people want these names and brands stricken from history. What they represent are heart-wrenching and enraging facts, which still impact our societies to this day.

But, is the removal of these names and brands a gut-reaction that misses a crucial opportunity? In our efforts to right the wrongs of past and present injustices, could we be going overboard? Could there be a better way?

Lest we forget

Many countries observe what was originally called Armistice Day. This was first held on November 11, 1919, in honor of the ending of the First World War. Member states of the Commonwealth now refer to this day as Remembrance Day. In the United States, it’s called Veteran’s Day.

We use this day as a reminder of the sacrifices and hardships that past generations have endured due to war so that we could enjoy the freedoms of the present. The phrase “lest we forget” has been used as a plea to not forget the past and therefore not allow it to be repeated.

By changing the names of existing brands and institutions, are we purposefully striking out on the road to forgetfulness? In our efforts to make people feel safe and welcome, could our current solution be pushing us in a direction in which we are more likely to repeat the past rather than prevent it?

“Not all tears are an evil”

The history of the human race is rife with heartache. Unimaginable suffering has been endured and abided. And suffering continues to this day.

But not all suffering is bad. Not all emotional pain is negative. Sometimes it inspires us to be more and better.

When we look upon our shared history, when we examine it in a fair and unbiased way, we see our follies and our triumphs, our sins and our virtuous acts. We see the mistakes we have made and the pain we have caused. We see ourselves in everyone: the victims and the perpetrators.

What every human must learn from history is that we are all capable of incredible kindness and unspeakable malice. This is a painful lesson. No one wants to accept that within them lies the potential for evil. Yet, there it is. It’s a haunting, uncomfortable truth. One we forget at our peril. After all, November 11th is not only a day to feel grateful for what we’ve been given but a day for remembering the horrors of which humans are more than capable.

It is with this painful knowledge that we can move forward more appropriately, more carefully, and more thoughtfully. As J.R.R Tolkien wrote in The Return of the King:

“I will not say: do not weep; for not all tears are an evil.”

What can we do, instead?

We are at a crucial moment in history. The choices we make in the coming decades will determine the fate of our species, as well as this beautiful, unique planet we call home. What we do next is of the utmost importance.

When it comes to renaming our brands and institutions, let’s pause for a moment to consider our options. By removing these names and logos from public spaces, we may be creating an environment that has less emotional “triggers”, but at what cost?

Purging our public spaces of negative imagery may cause us to forget the hardships we’ve endured and thereby lead us to commit more evils in the future. This purge might cause us to repeat the past in unforeseeable ways.

Could we, instead, re-claim these names and logos for ourselves and re-purpose them toward our own ends?

What if the stories of these names and brands weren’t over? What if we could create new endings for them? Endings that don’t stop at racism or sexism or any other “-ism”, but ones that remind us of where we’ve come from and the better future we’re fighting for?

What if instead of demanding companies and institutions purge these names and logos from our public spaces, we pressure them to write these new stories? Stories that includes the truth of the heartache and the pain, but also the promise of a better tomorrow? Could these names and brands be used to inspire positive change if only they were presented in a different light?

Yes, it would hurt. Yes, it would be uncomfortable. Yes, it would have to be done thoughtfully and carefully. But, it would paint the struggle of humanity’s pursuit of justice and fairness in a more accurate and, I think, more hopeful light.

After all, human progress is not made by forgetting our past follies, but by embracing them and using what we’ve learned to make life better.