John James Audubon - Cancelled!
The Tucson chapter of the National Audubon Society has followed a number of other chapters in changing its name. It is now called Tucson Bird Alliance. The reason is that John James Audubon (born Jean-Jacques Rabin, April 26, 1785 – January 27, 1851) was not an abolitionist; in fact, he owned a couple of slaves himself during his farming period.
The change is in name only, the group is still a chapter of the National Audubon Society. The National Audubon Society, by the way, considered a name change but decided to keep the Audubon name, and it is cool with the chapters changing their names.
John James Audubon was a French - American self taught artist and naturalist. He is famous for his multi-volume book Birds of America which contained lithographs of his accurate and detailed paintings of American birds. He wanted to create a representation of every bird of North America. You might say that he was the father of American ornithology.
Frankly, I think all the name changing is juvenile.
All of Audubon’s recognition is limited to his contributions to ornithology - which are well deserved. Nobody associates anything other than “birds” with the name “Audubon”. He was never held up as an example of exemplary living. Few people are, and those who are probably do not deserve it. As for the many who fall far short, they, unlike Audubon, are often given a pass.
Passes are regularly given to famous rock stars, famous athletes, film actors and directors. Speaking of film directors, the case of Roman Polanski is illustrative.
Polanski was a celebrated Hollywood film director back in the 1970’s. He had a fondness for little girls which led him to legal troubles of the criminal variety. In her article for The Guardian titled “What does Hollywood's reverence for child rapist Roman Polanski tell us?”, Hadley Freeman recalls the case against Polanski.
There are some quibbles about who said what, but the generally agreed facts are as follows: in March 1977 Polanski, who was then 43, took a child, Samantha Gailey (now Geimer), who he knew was 13 years old, to Jack Nicholson’s house to take photos of her for a magazine. There, he gave her champagne and, according to her, quaaludes. He then had sex with her, drove her home and, the next day, was arrested.
Polanski was arrested and convicted, but prior to sentencing managed to flee the country to France, his new home. There he continued to work with A-List actors and actresses who forever sang the praises of his brilliant directing. Most decided to ignore his pedophilia practice for the sake of art.
I mentioned Polanski because he violated a law that dates back to time immemorial, is cross-cultural, is viewed with disgust, and yet, he gets a pass. Audubon, on the other hand, engaged in an evil practice that was not recognized as evil in his time.
I would like to also point out that Audubon was never accused of committing a crime.
Today we understand that slavery and racism are profoundly evil and therefore slavery is illegal and racism is met with disgust, but two hundred years ago they were cultural norms. Perhaps two hundred years from now the consideration of abortion as a profound evil will be a cultural norm. Would it then be fair for those future people to look back and condemn all of us?
There is a principle in the law that is applicable to social norms. A person may not be charged with violating a law if the violation occurred before the law existed. Similarly, a person should not be condemned for an act that did not violate the laws or social norms of the time.
The cancelling of Audubon seems to be more of an exercise in vanity than pursuit of … what exactly? It is neither sensible nor just to condemn a 19th Century man for being a 19th Century man.