Dozer wrote:I'd agree that Kit Carson could be offensive to some (ask any Navajo), but if we're going to change it, we need to do a few more things:
Change any city named after Columbus.
Take Andrew Jackson off the $20.
Rename anything named after Custer, Sherman, Sheridan......etc.
Seriously, once we start down this path, where does it stop?
peter303 wrote:Kit was a broad-based adventurer: trapper, soldier, government official.
At times he fought against Mexico and Indians, probably incurring 21st century political incorrectness
He married into and lived with all three ethnic groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_Carson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
del_sur wrote:
Kit Carson was a genocidal assshole who marched an entire tribe hundreds of miles to a concentration camp, killing many along the way, nearly destroying a whole culture.
While that may qualify him for America's highest offices these days, I agree wholeheartedly with Susan.
I agree with *all* of the above comments. I added a poll to this thread, so please vote. I'll forward the thread on to the BGN - at least then they'll hear the other side of the argument, before they make their decision. Thanks folks!
That petition is not doing anything “official†except showing unverified local support. It is a petition website. Those 104 names could have been typed in by anybody.
So the real question is have they started any of those steps. If so they would probably cite this petition as "evidence". We could do a counter petition.
From the BGN site: How can I propose to change the name of a natural feature?
Proposals to change the name of a natural feature may be submitted to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names as described below. However, there must be a compelling reason. The Board is responsible by law for standardizing geographic names throughout the Federal Government, and discourages name changes unless necessary. Further, the Board states that, "changing a name merely to correct or re-establish historical usage is not in and of itself a reason to change a name."
Names evolve, and even through cartographic recording errors, become established in the local vernacular. Geographic names usually are well established on maps, other documents, and on signs. Although any approved name change will be reflected immediately in the GNIS, maps, other documents, and signs will only be changed during the normal revision cycle.
The Board on Geographic Names promulgates policies governing issues such as commemorative naming, derogatory names, and names in wilderness areas. Generally the most important policy is local use and acceptance. Please note that no natural feature (and certain manmade features) may be named for a living person. A potential honoree must have been deceased for at least five years, and must have had either a direct and long-term association with the feature or must have made notable civic contributions.
Upon receipt of a proposal, all interested parties will be asked to comment. The Board makes decisions only with recommendations from the local government, county government, the State Names Authority (in 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 2 Territories), and appropriate land management agencies. Only name proposals for natural features will be accepted (see FAQ #7 for information on administrative feature names—churches, cemeteries, schools, parks, shopping centers, etc).
A names change proposal may be submitted using the Domestic Geographic Names form (PDF version) mailed to U.S. Board on Geographic Names, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 523, Reston, VA 20192-0523. Alternatively, the online version of the form may be used. Please read the Principles, Policies, and Procedures in the Main Menu to the left before submitting a proposal, or an information packet and forms will be mailed to you upon request. The entire process is free of charge, but will take approximately six months. For more information contact the GNIS Manager.
Red, Rugged, and Rotten: The Elk Range - Borneman & Lampert
MountainHiker wrote:That petition is not doing anything “official†except showing unverified local support. It is a petition website. Those 104 names could have been typed in by anybody.
So the real question is have they started any of those steps.
Yes! The Board of Geographic Names is supposed to vote on this next month... I didn't post *all* of the information I have on this (it's buried in my email) but this is for real, and it could happen. A counter-petition would be great if someone wants to take the time to build it, but I've been told that *anything* I can provide - even this thread - might help to prevent the renaming of the peak. The information I have came from a very good source, but he's associated with an organization and so can't lend his name to this one way or the other, because that might suggest that he's representing the opinion of the organization.
I wouldn't have posted this without being 100% certain that it was true, and not only possible, but quite probable.
I agree to not add confusion to are currently-established mountain names, but where in the petition does it say or even imply that the reason the town's board and petition-signers want the named changed is because of anything "offensive" or any bad connotations about Kit Carson's name???? I don't see it. The only reason I mention this is that if your counter-petition mentions this as any reason, that may lower its credibility.
Maybe there's something I'm missing. I don't really want it changed (though I did vote "yes" just to be ornery), but "Kit Carson really wasn't a bad guy" isn't a reason for it not to change, not that he was a bad guy, its just no one was saying that he was as far as I can tell. Interesting, we'll see how this all shakes out.
Gerry Roach's 3rd edition is due out in February; I wonder if he realizes his book may be out of date before it's published?
I don't really care about changing it because of Kit Carson. I will say, however, that renaming it to Mt. Crestone IMO is stupid. Are we really that unoriginal that we need a third Crestone mountain?
"Human beings climb at their peril. Some might think that by climbing a great mountain they have somehow conquered it, but we can be only visitors here."
climbing_rob wrote:
Maybe there's something I'm missing. I don't really want it changed (though I did vote "yes" just to be ornery), but "Kit Carson really wasn't a bad guy" isn't a reason for it not to change, not that he was a bad guy, its just no one was saying that he was as far as I can tell. Interesting, we'll see how this all shakes out.
Yup, I have a lot more info on this, but my climbing buddies are due here in 3 minutes and I haven't packed yet, so I'll have to dig it up and post tomorrow.
The townspeople of Crestone do not own the mountains above the town, any more than I, a resident of Chicago, own Lake Michigan. The citizens of Crestone have no right to choose the official name of the mountain.
If you explore the lives of many of the individuals for whom the Colorado 14ers are named, you'll find a host of different reasons to disassociate these names from the peaks on which they're bestowed. Corrupt politicians, ruthless soldiers, elitist universities...if socially or morally unacceptable behavior is an exclusionary criterion, then we'll need to change the names of 10 or more Colorado 14ers. The urge to rewrite history is alive and well.
Which 14er is named for the most reprehensible person or institution? (Let those without sin cast the first vote.)
If we change the names of landmarks that may not fit into being politically correct it will be much easier to forget how easy it is to cherish people and ideas that are detrimental to American freedoms. Just my opinion tho.
They forget that some crisis is necessary to hone skill. "Near misses," those brief encounters with the reality of mortality, are great learning tools if properly approached. -Denali Climbers Guidebook
Somehow my post wasn't posted, but my idea was this.
HELL NO don't rename the mountain. This is just an attempt to rewrite or cover up our own history because some people don't like it. If you are FOR a name change you must also call Denali McKinley to be consistent, yes? Sure, this Kit Carson fellow did some stuff that isn't PC now, but back then I'm sure it was more of "the norm" as far as our policy in dealing with indigenous peoples.
If nothing else, Mt. Crestone is a stupid (lame, redundant, etc.) name, we already have 2 mountains with Crestone in the name, and that should be fine. We could name it "Mount Barak Obama"! Okay, maybe not- but there's got to be something else we can call it. Mt. Intrigue? Mt. Quagmire? Enigma? I'm sure the thesaurus can determine the proper name here in this case.
