@HelenC Thank you so much for sharing, and so disappointed that they have not given you the courtesy of a response. Those were two very eloquently written emails, with grace and tact.
I am also genuinely discouraged, and angry, to hear of your experience in MA – so I also apologize. There is absolutely no excuse If you are still in MA and ever need a riding buddy at a social distance, I’m right outside of Boston as well. :encouragement:
No one will blame you for the loss of PF. Hope your guy heals ASAP and hope to see you out and about at events next year!!
If I were the landowner, I would also be more offended if they started referring to it as P***** Field, instead of just calling it the Unionville Event or something. The P***** is clearly pointing out that the word is so offensive that it shall not be uttered. Every other instance of words not spelled out this way are generally extremely offensive words.
Plus, just as N***** is now “the N word” would that make P**** the P word? Would we be eventing at Pee Field?
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Words can hurt even when the pain is NOT visible. EN addressed a word, which in the grand scheme of life, is small, yet with consequences. On the hard things in life, one often stands alone. Racism is like the dust on the fridge, out of sight, out of mind-be the cloth to wipe it off.
This is not about racism…this is about what a landowner can do with his land. If someone has a political agenda, they can pontificate from their own $multi-million property.
If I were the landowner, going along for 20 years…minding my own business…and this s***t hit the internet, you can bet I would cancel the contract so fast your head would spin.
Given the BS being spouted on the internet, the event going on this weekend is lucky that it was allowed to continue.
I see we have differences when it comes to words and their differing meanings based on life experiences. Not gonna hash this out. Stated my thoughts, my opinion. Not interested in being “right.”
Which makes the timing of multiple aspects of this story (as well as a number of communications that apparently went back and forth between a few key people in the days immediately preceding the event…) truly a head scratcher.
A little be of a rehash. But I thought it was interesting to line up these communications in chronological order. And in the context of what we know so far about the communications that led to the lease termination.
(Might just be pointless semantics - but if the Sep. 13th “letter” was the final straw that led Mr. Walker to cancel the lease the next day, then it must have been an email rather than a letter. A letter would be unlikely to reach anyone on the same day, especially a Sunday.)
So according to this account, although the “letter” was addressed to EN, somehow Mr. Walker saw it, or became aware of it, on or before noon on Monday (possibly less than 24 hours after it was sent).
The email below that terminated the lease was sent at 12:55 pm, Monday the 14th. It is a reply to an email from Rob Burk/USEA that the time stamp indicates came in about 45 minutes before. We don’t have the content of that email.
So, if these facts are as they seem, according to accounts made public so far … [feel free to correct errors, add facts …]
Communications about the name ‘Plantation’ had been going on since June between EN, PFEE, USEA, and who knows who else.
At some point there was a PFEE board meeting in which EN participated. EN’s remarks urging a name change left several board members feeling highly offended. Some felt that they were threatened with more pressure from a broader media base if they did not change the name.
Other communications/actions that we do not know would also have occurred.
Upshot: PFEE was not changing the name. The USEA considered calling it “Unionville” as does the FEI.
Then:
Rob Burk sent the Sunday Sep. 13th email to EN (per the quote above).
Mr. Walker became aware of that email on Sunday or Monday morning, according to The Horse article.
At some point there was a communication from Rob Burk that the USEA would use “P***” for ‘Plantation’, and both Mr. Walker and EN were aware of that as well.
As we see in the email image below, at about noon on Monday, Burk sent an email to Mr. Walker with the subject “Time to talk?” at 12:08 pm Monday Sep. 14th, but we don’t know the content. We also don’t know if it was part of a longer email chain, or when that chain would have begun.
Mr Walker replied 45 minutes later with clearly deeply injured feelings, terminating the lease and addressing his remarks to Denis Glaccum, who is copied on the reply.
I have added some pointers to things in the image below that, IMO, may provide clues to help cast light on Mr. Walker’s reaction. Again IMO, the additional context that has gradually leaked out makes it look like less of a sudden knee-jerk reaction than it seemed at first. The pressure had been building for some time, and so had the resistance.
Although the email from Cuyler Walker is a reply to Rob Burk/USEA, copying Denis Glaccum and another person, the remarks are addressed directly to Denis Glaccum. Not that it matters, they were all on the email. But Mr. Walker did not address the remarks to Rob Burk who he was replying to, although obviously he intended that Burk would see them.
From the beginning I have thought that it was telling that Mr. Walker attributed the “smear campaign” to “the media”, without naming any particular media organization. Now we know that since June he had been hearing from both EN and the USEA regarding their coverage of the event.
With a caveat that I feel a bit stalker-ish and creepy about posting these private emails like this. But this is the thread that is trying to figure out what happened to this fixture in the sport and which parties should assume accountability. Readers/eventers are working out what they feel their response should be to the facts - if we ever have a complete picture of the facts, of course.
One thing that stands out to me is the sentiment “I would never have allowed any of you on the property”. He’s generalizing the blame, obviously. But more importantly, whatever good times, people met, bonding experiences and charitable benefit occurred over the last 20 years, he would give it all up to have never been exposed to whatever has been said to him, whatever discussions have been had, about the ‘Plantation’ name of his farm.
I’m sure there is much more to know, and we may or may not ever have the complete story.
THIS ^^^^^ is why a landowner would not want to have anything to do with this debacle.
This is private property. Assuming he has complied with the land use contract, the land owner does not need to justify what he does with his land…to anyone…and certainly not to publicly date this on the internet.
On the one hand, despite my strong reservations about the name in the current environment, I do understand this perspective. I’d probably be just as angry and defensive - but I also hope I’d be open enough to take a long head-clearing walk and then work to better understand what the other side was saying, and why. Ideally - it’s always easier to idealize when one is not on the spot at present.
On the other hand, MBMR is the micro, inside-the-bubble view. It’s only as big as the property itself. It excludes a larger world of people. That’s ok - unless one has intentionally opened up a national-scale venue that is now living in the big, macro world.
The host invited the guests, so the host is assuming the greater part of the burden of having them. When the host invites so many people in from everywhere, the host joins the hospitality industry. That’s just reality. Think of what the average hotel manager puts up with from guests. The adaptations and adjustments for all of the personal quirks they bring, including their perceptions. But the hotel invited them, so it’s up to the hotel to deal with it.
A look at how hotels package and market their product is an interesting view of the guests they want to attract. To grow an event, we have to think about that, too.
So yes - we have to do well by the landowners and treat them with the utmost gratitude and respect. But realistically the LO has to opt in as well. Otherwise it won’t work. We have to work with the LO’s, and we have to be sure they understand (as best possible) what is coming and be willing to deal with it. There is only so much we can do to cushion the rough edges.
If a LO has limitations and restrictions, then using the land means scaling back accordingly to keep the LO comfortable. It would seem that in this case there was a collision between the ambition of growing the event against accommodating the preferences of the LO.
Welcoming and accommodating a broad scale of guests is not about property rights. It is about words and perceptions. The host invited them, and by doing that, the host opted in.
If the host wants to stand on property rights and personal whims, scale it back to a population of guests that will be more comfortable for the host.
It looks more and more as if this could have been handled much better and the LO treated with more consideration. But we don’t know the whole story. In the end, the problem is still the same - the name as it is right now doesn’t resonate cleanly on a large scale, and risks alienating some of the very people the event claims that it would like to have as guests. That’s a conflict with MBMR. So there has to be a decision about which direction the event will go, how openly welcoming it will be to which audience, if it can be resurrected at all.
And THAT is why it is beginning to look as if the preferences of the LO are not aligned with the ambition of growing the event to such a large-scale audience, both attending and following from a distance.
Unless a way could be found to accommodate those larger sensibilities and still satisfy the LO’s understandable wish to acknowledge the history of the land. Somehow the conversation didn’t seem to go in that direction. From the fragments we know.
The “host” (landowner) did not invite people on his land. He allowed people on his land. He did not sign on to be Hilton of Unionville.
The people who ride on his property are his GUESTS who are allowed on someone’s property thru the good graces of the owner. Guests owe the host the courtesy of considerate and polite behavior.
Or perhaps having consideration and being polite are outdated concepts these days.
Then perhaps USEA needs to think about spending $$$$ to buy their own properties upon which they can choose to run whatever events they want and not rely on the good will of land owners.
I want to know what prompted all of this. Some are saying that EN decided to choose this as an attempt to be seen as “woke”, and that they never discussed it with any POC. Some of those same people said it would be different if it had been a black person going to the event organizers themselves and saying they felt hurt by it. But I thought I read in the EN article that they did have several people bring up this issue to them.
If there were several POC that initiated all of this by going to EN and the USEA saying, hey, this name really bothers us, is there something we can do about it, would that have been better? Because for all we know, that could have happened.
I think it’s interesting that people are trying to make this into a “land owner has the right to do what he wants with his property” argument. No one, including EN, has said that he doesn’t. He has every right to take away access to his property because he doesn’t want to be involved in this. That really isn’t the issue. I think he could have tried to do something different, but I don’t completely fault him for that. It IS his land.
The more info comes out, the more it looks like it was handled badly on all sides. I still think the sentiment behind it was solid, there appears to be a decent amount of people bothered by the name, or not wanting the name associated with the sport (like we really need more impressions that all equestrian sports are only for rich white people), and it could have been a productive conversation involving everyone. If it came down to it though, I would side with EN and the USEA simply because they are trying to do the right thing. It was an attempt at a step in the right direction. Change won’t come easily or immediately though. I mean, God, look at the push back just on here about the possibility of the name changing. Not really any easy answers on this.
Consideration and good manners are apparently something the virtuous vocabulary experts at the heart of this whole thing apparently failed to realize the importance of in their overwhelming zeal to swoop in and lecture a multigenerational land owner with hundreds of acres in a place like Unionville, PA about semantic issues of PROFOUND social concern that the 30 year old woke crowd thinks he MUST concur with their perspective on…
Thanks to both @HelenC and @cbsh13 (post #107) for sharing their perspectives. They each came to different conclusions about the name and generously shared their thought processes with us and, in Helen C.'s case, with EN.
Whatever EN did or did not do with respect to the negotiations with the LO, PFEE, USEA, USEF, etc., I now have a terrible opinion of them for not having prioritized an acknowledgment of, and response to, HelenC’s communications.
I don’t care what else EN is juggling at the moment, that should have been on their top 3 things to do list each of the days her emails came in. I had been withholding judgement about EN and their motives until now. However, if they cannot be arsed - over several days! - to respond to direct, on-point communications like that, then their concern rings hollow at best.
It seems to me that EN got exactly what they wanted. In the future they don’t have to cover an event with what they perceive as an Insensitive Name and they get to show everyone how far they are willing to go to push their point. Many on this thread have given the impression that they approve of this and give them props for this.
EN’s attitude = If you don’t get what you want, burn it down. It’s for the greater good. Mission accomplished.
And what about that email suggests to anyone that the event could be resurrected? It sounded final to me.
I’m still wondering why other organizations which used the field have tolerated the Insensitive Name all this time.
Why not try reading all of Helen’s post before taking umbrage? She mentioned that the links to the Diversity essays had disappeared, and that neither of her emails had been answered by EN. TotB has merely pointed out that the links are still there - and to me TotB meant that does not mean Helen, or anyone else, shouldn’t be concerned EN is ignoring her recent communications.
