This ^^^ is text from EN web site.
https://eventingnation.com/why-change-is-hard/
Actions have reactions… and consequences…
EN made their bed…and thus they will have to lay in it.
Perhaps EN should have been a little more humble to begin with.
17 Likes
Just for giggles I looked it up on Reddit…always a reliable (lol!) tell these days on what the threat level is. And yes, a good number of the commentators are attacking the landowner as racist, others are just confirming their belief that horse people as racist and drama queens. Now, by Reddit standards it is being very civil but the owner is being dragged into the mud, no question. It will be something that causes financial harm to the landowner, if not physical. I can guarantee his lawyers have just earned several hours to start with. ‘Your business has an offensive name’ equals ‘you are a racist’ in today’s world, and only the most disingenuous won’t admit that.
And ‘you are a racist’ is, or should be, a serious accusation. Increasingly, and this is the REAL tragedy, it is character assassination and the real racists will be missed…the fable is the ‘boy who called wolf’ by the way. Ought to be required reading.
There is a reason, as the trustee that oversees a good sized bit of land, I would never in a million years open it the public. Lawsuits over tree branches, lawsuits over bicycles, lawsuits over…whatever, and now we can add random character assassination because ‘someone is offended’.
26 Likes
Unfortunately, this scenario might start a domino effect where other “private” venues may decide they don’t need this exposure and close their door.
I can tell you that if I had been holding an event on my property and this even hit my radar, I would now seriously be considering closing the doors to avoid any potential future issues.
17 Likes
Eventing Nation enjoyed playing journalists, but are they members of SPJ? Do they abide by the code of ethics?
5 Likes
When a controversy blows up this big, it can be hard to remember that we are only a few days into it.
From the USEA’s interview statements, it sounds as if they are going to try to smooth things over and come up with some kind of resolution to get the lease un-canceled and the events reinstated. Don’t know if that will be possible. But maybe the best thing is to let them get on with it and hope that, somehow, they manage to do it.
4 Likes
They literally said it’s also known as Logan’s Field (no idea where i got the grandfather part, must have mixed it up with something else) so I feel like it is relevant. I’m not saying they had to change it, just that maybe that could have been a potential compromise. Though guess it doesn’t matter now (maybe that will change though).
Do any of you that are so angry about this care about the sentiment behind all of this? Forget what you think of EN, and whether you think they were being genuine about it or not. What do you think about the actual thought that some people are upset about the name? Do you think that, if it had been gone about a better way, it would have been a worthwhile discussion? Or do you think that it’s just a stupid thing for anyone to care about?
10 Likes
I saw comments on Facebook that the Area chair the event is located in was upset because EN should have approached the Area chair first and not go over their head. My guess is they went to Rob Burke?
4 Likes
Since you are asking, I am sick of things with no relevant meaning being taken away because someone perceives an injustice that never occurred there. Land owners bust their ass and I would have taken a F-U attitude if that is what I had gotten in return. There is no common sense anymore. People need to get a life. When you dilute a worthwhile subject with indignation over every blessed thing, people just stop listening. JMO.
19 Likes
I understand why they cared about it, absolutely.
6 Likes
Repeat after me…The Landowner’s Mantra is ---- My Barn…My Rules.
This land is someone’s private property. This event is held on someone’s private field.
Whatever the landowner wants to call his field…that is the landowner’s prerogative.
It is pretty arrogant and impertinent for anyone to come in to tell a land owner what to call their own property.
15 Likes
Yes. Particularly if they had gone through the proper channels, researched the background of the owners and thought for more than passing moment that more than one event is held at that place and the owners could pull the plug on the entire venue. That having access to 300 acres upon which to ride is a privilege granted by the owners and one that could be brought to a halt at almost any time and for almost any reason. The owner is an attorney after all.
Also, if they had made significant visible strides of their own at their own publication to hire more diverse employees that may not have gone amiss.
If USEA (or whomever) pursues this with tact, the owner may change his mind and continue to let some groups use it. Maybe even host the events again next year. But I doubt EN will be welcome on the grounds anytime soon, if ever.
11 Likes
The Federalist is a right-wing, conservative website that’s hardly a beacon of truth. I’d be willing to bet $100 that Denis Glaccum turned them on to this. “Another attack on rich people!”
16 Likes
The possibility of losing a terrific event is an incredibly tough blow to our sport. It is an outcome that we never desired and never expected.
But that’s a lie. COTH has an email where they were warned exactly that would happen. They didnt care. This isnt an apology it’s a desperate attempt to save face, don’t believe it. They all deserve to be unemployed.
24 Likes
Following along. FWIW, I find the name unfortunate despite its blameless origin. I would not take my minor goddaughter who is Black to the event because of the name. I think we need to drop references to offense/offensive/offended. Offended is more akin to a reaction when you are insulted or made fun of. In this instance it strikes me that the issue is the terrible reminder of what that word stands for in almost all cases of the use of the word. Neutral use of that word is the vastly rarer case. The history of this specific use notwithstanding, I don’t want my friends, my goddaughter, any attendee at all to have to see that word or hear it repeated throughout the day while they are just trying to have the same lovely day in the countryside that the rest of us have at these events.
I loathe country music but adore Dolly. I wish the LO could have had the same mature, unemotional response: once I was aware it could make some people feel uncomfortable and unwelcome, once I knew that it could have a completely unintended effect, I wanted to change it in favour of something that would honour my family and the land without any negative associations. I would look at it from this perspective: my ancestors never intended to conjure associations to the plantation system that relied on enslaved labour. They would not thank me for refusing to do something as simple as changing a name (relatively recently applied) if that refusal caused any harm, no matter how slight or unintended. They would thank me for associating their great legacy with kindness and inclusiveness and using the change as an opportunity to celebrate the family, highlight local history, and demonstrate a truly collaborative and community-minded way forward in changing times.
I would be out there saying: my ancestors were intelligent, kind, generous, and thoroughly modern in their times. They trust me to carry on that great family legacy. This small change honours that trust and brings additional acclaim to the reputation they built over generations. Being custodian of a great family property like this does not just mean looking inward and freezing the place in some distance past. Sometimes responsible custodianship demands action to protect and preserve the spirit and intentions of the family, not just the physical property or the various names used in connection with it.
It’s just a name cobbled together from two other names; it’s not sacred. Caring more about a name than the effect of the name seems truly strange to me. The Dolly example, by contrast, was clear-headed, straightforward, simple, kind, and inclusive. Dolly never dug in her heels and complained that she felt people were calling her racist. She didn’t need to cast herself as a victim and make some grand gesture like shutting down Dollywood. She just made a swift and sound decision and was open and honest about it. She welcomed it as an opportunity to change her place for the better. How refreshing! It makes me scratch my head that more people cannot approach these things in the same unemotional, egoless way.
The contrast between the two examples does make me roll my eyes once again over people saying men (in business, government, etc.) are superior decision makers because women are too emotional.
Honest question: was there a reason EN could not have simply covered the event and called it Unionville without informing or engaging anyone? If the FEI uses that name, how would there have been any controversy at all with that approach? I understand they are saying they wanted to ultimately accomplish a name change for the event. But they say their first approach was to discuss an alternative name for EN coverage. Why would they have had to ask that question at all if the FEI already uses a different name?
Another honest question: why does the LO care what the event is called? Like, they don’t require MSCFH to call themselves Plantation Fields Foxhounds. I assume the balloon festival, 4H, and all the other organizations aren’t required to reflect the name of the property in the name of their event. So, why does he care what the 3-day is called? That seems super odd to me. To all who say, “My barn, my rules,” he doesn’t seem to have this rule for most users of the property. Why is it a make or break rule for just this one use?
33 Likes
Honest question: was there a reason EN could not have simply covered the event and called it Unionville without informing or engaging anyone? If the FEI uses that name, how would there have been any controversy at all with that approach? I understand they are saying they wanted to ultimately accomplish a name change for the event. But they say their first approach was to discuss an alternative name for EN coverage. Why would they have had to ask that question at all if the FEI already uses a different name?
Another honest question: why does the LO care what the event is called? Like, they don’t require MSCFH to call themselves Plantation Fields Foxhounds. I assume the balloon festival, 4H, and all the other organizations aren’t required to reflect the name of the property in the name of their event. So, why does he care what the 3-day is called? That seems super odd to me. To all who say, “My barn, my rules,” he doesn’t seem to have this rule for most users of the property. Why is it a make or break rule for just this one use?
This was covered earlier but the FEI refers to most events by their location, not their name. The exceptions being some of the larger events in the UK. If you look up their database or calendar, the overwhelming majority (I’d guess 90%+) are referred to by their location. The FEI is not calling it Unionville to cleverly avoid calling it Plantation Field. They are not taking a stance. I really doubt the outcome would be different if EN had reported calling it Unionville and then issued a statement after.
The landowner in this situation is also a (former) member of the organizing board for this event. I don’t think this is a matter of selectively applying rules. I think he got pissed that the committee he was part of was being pressured to do something and he thought, screw this. I’ll just end this problem right now. I suspect the issue is more that it’s being implied he is racist and how the issue was brought up vs. a deep attachment to the event name.
I am very sensitive to property, landowner concerns and loss of access of land for equestrians ride over. Since I am the one repeating the “My Barn – My Rules” I will address your question.
The answer to why an owner reacts a certain way… is because they are human…and because they can.
As someone who has the privilege to ride over “other people’s property”… I am exquisitely sensitive to my being a guest on someone’s land…and I try never to forget it.
I keep repeating MBMR to continue to build awareness that we riders are guests on someone’s private land and to highlight the need for people to say “thank you” to the people who allow us to ride on their property.
9 Likes
No one would argue for users not being grateful. In the present case, the lack of gratitude has nothing to do with the users at all, so I think that’s just a distraction. In fact, there has been zero evidence of any ingratitude on behalf of the users so, while it’s good to bring awareness to that cause, it’s not terribly applicable to this particular situation. EN was the only party expressing any opinion at all; no users/guests of the property were involved in any way.
Do you have any thoughts on why this is the LO’s dealbreaker only for the 3-day and not for any other event? Why it appears to be “My Barn, My Rules (not all of my rules apply equally to all users)”?
6 Likes
Probably the way it was approached. “Change the name or we are going to the mainstream media!” Why should the owner try to placate and try to have a discussion with someone that showed him their ass right from the start?
EN keeps backpedaling and changing their story. At this point, they need to shut up and pray that USEA and the rest of the PFEE board can fix the mess they created.
20 Likes
what makes you think it’s only for the 3 day?
3 Likes
OMG!
This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen in ages. So glad I live in California-smoke and all.
As Earl said - WORDS MATTER!
EN had every right to take the position they did.
The owner of the property is acting like a child (which I get, is cool for old white men in this day and age…). And the reason he yanked the lease is because the implications touched a nerve.
End of story. And if the USEA and USEF can’t smooth it over? They don’t deserve to exist let alone take your money.
Seb
11 Likes
