Comments on: Changing the name of Rhode Island

By: R.I. to vote on changing state’s name | The Living Consequences

R.I. to vote on changing state’s name | The Living Consequences — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:10:58 +0000

[...] “plantation” has never been limited to the circumstances of chattel slavery, and the history of the state’s name shows that the words “Providence Plantations” did not have anything to do with slave [...]

By: James

James — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:15:37 +0000

Sean, do you at least recognize that the supporters of this name change aren’t trying to eliminate slavery from our understanding of history? That they are enthusiastic about teaching that history, but do not want their state’s name to reflect a period which was, and remains, so traumatic?

As for moving on to other issues, I would suggest that the legacy of slavery is still very much with us today. So I’m quite sympathetic to those who resent calls to simply “get over it.” This seems to mean that people should ignore the implications of this history and not work to eliminate them, which would be a terrible idea.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:05:21 +0000

Next thing they will cut out the slavery parts in childrens history books. Some people just have to move on to better issues to be a part of. Get over it.

By: “‘Plantations’ in state’s name is offensive remnant of slavery trade” | The Living Consequences

Tue, 19 May 2009 23:01:30 +0000

[...] previously blogged about the grassroots effort in Rhode Island to change the state’s name. In short, this [...]

By: James

James — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:50:14 +0000

I’m sympathetic to your viewpoint, Sandy. My first instinct on these issues is always to strive for historical accuracy and awareness, and not to allow misunderstandings to govern how we think and speak about our history.

However, my ancestors were not brutally mistreated by this society, in a history closely associated with words such as “slavery” and “plantation.”

This history and its legacy represent an open wound in our society, one which has never been properly addressed. I think supporters of the name change raise an important issue when they argue that while the word “plantations” has a different meaning in this context, it is a deeply painful word for millions of Americans, and its use in the state’s official name is confusing at best.

This reminds me of an incident, several years ago, in which the use of the word “niggardly” became an issue in city politics in Washington, D.C. It was seen by many people as an offensive word referring to blacks, and by others as a word which was similar enough that it ought to be taboo. As I recall, it took the intervention of several prominent national black leaders, including Jesse Jackson, to convince people that “niggardly” is a perfectly respectable English word, and should not be banned simply because of how it sounds to the ear.

By: Alexander Perry Scott

Alexander Perry Scott — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 04:04:32 +0000

To change the name of the state of Rhode Island is to deny the history with which it was built. It connects it with its Plimouth Plantation roots in Massachusetts. To allow a good word to be made into a bad word is wrong. I cling to original meanings for the sake of history and tradition and resent the usurpation by others. People need to be taught the truth of their history, not to deny it. If they wish to be inclusive about the state’s name, maybe they should drop Rhode Island and adopt Providnece as its name. Afterall the Providence plantations covered all of the state not included on the island of Rhode.