You say that like you know he hasn’t been putting up with USFEE,USEA,USEF, EN, PC, and Eventer shit for 20 years.
WELL DO YOU ?
Obviously he’s trash and we should seize his property for…other wealthy white people and their athletes to prance luxury sport pets about on.
:lol:
everyone is awful.
13 Likes
Just to set the record straight, as this was previously discussed, the name “Plantation Field” was derived from “Logan’s Field” and “Plantation Woods”, the latter of which was planted by the Boy Scout project (if I understand all I’ve read correctly).
Frankly, arguing about this online is not going to do a damn thing to fix the current situation. There is a lot of misinformation being shared and suppositions being made.
I stand by my original opinion that this is not so much about changing the name, which I have no problem with. The issue here is how EN went about it, with the nasty emails and threat to expose this story to the national press.
The politics of the stakeholders involved should not be held out as a reason to defend EN or USEA’s actions. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (looking at you RAyers) to figure out that forcing a name change in this way was the absolute worst approach to take, especially if you know or anticipate that those you are asking may be less than amenable to the name change.
So be the bigger people and do it properly, starting with getting the Area II rep and surrounding community involved in the discussion, but most importantly, Black eventers and advocacy groups that are familiar with how to go about initiating change of potentially insensitive terminology/language.
Having a few privileged white people take this on and followed by a subsequent pile-up on social media of more mostly white privileged people has only created dissension and lessened the chance that this venue will ever be available again.
Maybe it’s just the point we’ve reached with the election in a few weeks, but I am so TIRED of all the finger pointing taking place on social media. I do hope those who truly care and are invested in Area II eventing are able to come together and discuss this in a civilized and respectful manner.
Signed an Area II Liberal Millennial (and yes, my photo is from an event at Plantation Field)
26 Likes
Denis Glaccum must not have even one friend on COTH forum. :o
No one is speaking up for his position of having his 20 years worth of work yanked from underneath him, AND being blamed by Walker for “a smear campaign in the media”.
read again, carefully for meaning, as to who he is blaming …
“any of you” would be Denis first & foremost, and eventers the rest, it would seem, all being punished together -
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:“none”,“data-size”:“full”,“title”:“PlantationFields-USEA-edit2-2020-09-16.jpg”,“data-attachmentid”:10736630}[/ATTACH]
How is Denis responsible for what the media does? He was against it, according to what we know so far. He told “the media” that they were not welcome and then hung up on them, as it were.
Denis was on Walker’s side. But Walker turned on him and cast him out, along with his 20 years of work. And people here on COTH are referring to both as if they are of a united opinion against the pressure from EN - but not so united, it seems, from Walker’s point of view. For some reason.
So, instead of people offering sympathy to Denis for this loss of his work for 20 years and the betrayal of a landowner he must have trusted to invest in so heavily, people are pouring fire on EN & the USEA . And feeling sorry for the landowner who betrayed Denis, for something the landowner decided to do on his own. No one forced the landowner’s decision. He had a temper tantrum, and this is the result.
“I would never have allowed any of you on the property” - Who is “you”? As this was addressed personally to Denis, by association this refers to eventers generally, especially those that have been to PF.
Are eventers getting this? In that email, the landowner is blaming YOU - especially if you have evented there. “You” were “on the property”.
Since the first thing to do in a crisis is blame someone, everyone is pointing the finger at EN and somewhat at USEA. But the landowner who chucked you out is blaming you! And punishing you by terminating the event. You didn’t even know this was happening, and he knew that.
Now many are ferociously defending Walker’s point of view. But they are in the net of Walker’s blame, and one of the two primary targets of his arbitrarily cruel punishment (with Denis).
We have no way of knowing what was said, and what was represented, between June when this was raised and September 14th when he terminated the lease by email. But this landowner who is so experienced in the ways of the world thought so little of the lot of you that he didn’t even give a notice period, much less offer to talk it out. He ran you off like picnickers who left trash and croquet divots all over the place.
And again - this landowner is not an humble retiring farmer sheltered from the outside world. Far from it. He is actively involved in law, business, charity, politics, government (had a county government position for a long time), and international affairs as well. He’s handled bigger media than this in his time. He has to have handled and resolved many fusses and fights over the years, both business and legal. It should be second nature to him.
For a man with this background, this little fuss from a tiny, semi-journalistic (they are fans, after all) online horse publication would have been easy enough to divert and handle. Even if he thought they were going to the Inquirer and the Times, he could get there first. Plus he could he could also say “we are doing this and that to address concerns about the misunderstanding of the meaning of the name, we have always welcomed everyone” and re-spin the story.
But he didn’t do that. Instead, he broke faith with a 20 year relationship of great significance on both sides. He was his worst self, rather than his best.
9 Likes
Love your whole post! I think this paragraph sums up the root of the issue…or at least why it became so intensely inflamed. Had the subject been approached in a more thoughtful, sensible manner, by actual persons affected, perhaps the response would have been heard differently.
10 Likes
In my posts sticking up for the land owner, that is all I am doing, sticking up for the land owner. That does not mean I do not feel bad for the people who ran these shows.
I think that was expressed many times in the thread, that this loss of land is a horrible loss for eventing and the organizers.
A person can think the land owner is not evil and still feel bad for these organizers and the local eventing community.
With what it appears happened here (from the well written posts that chronologically lay out the known information), I think the land owner did what was best for them and their family in this volatile time. Which was only made even more true by the NY Time article.
This event being cancelled and this land lease being lost still can not be blamed on the land owner. Sure he said ‘sorry, you can’t play in my yard anymore’ (clearly my words), but with good reason.
[/B]
That is an interesting way to look at it. I read that part as ‘with current events I am realizing that I should never have allowed this lease’ not that he is blaming the individuals who were riding their horses around his property. He had just had the governing body of the organization in charge treat him like crap, those are the you he is referring to.
You are free to hate whomever you want. But I still think you are making his point for him with all the ‘how dare he do this’ theatrics.
11 Likes
I’ve stood aside and read everything from the EN article and posts, to the NYT piece. I don’t have the stomach for Twitter though it sounds about as pleasant as a colonoscopy.
I only know the landowners family by reputation, and even the most horrible excuse for a journalist could have performed a quick Google search and discovered that the landowner and his family are credible, reputable people of good character. And people who perform good works and leave it at that. It is fairly evident that the journalist had an agenda - which is disturbing. And she would do well to not gloat about it on her FB page because her comments put a lie to the claims of innocence on the part of EN. As do the comments made by the owner.
Unfortunately, her and her employer’s crusade have not advanced efforts or outreach to attract more diverse participants. And by that I do not just mean minorities - I mean crossover participants from other horse sports (which are more racially diverse than eventing). In fact, quite the opposite. It has given eventing a black eye, and portrayed this sport in its participants in the most horrible light. This EN journalist made good on her threat to go to the mainstream media - who naturally and intentionally put an election year political spin on it.
So - I guess my problem is - who appointed this journalist or EN the official spokesperson for civil rights? I didn’t. I’m alarmed that any individual believes it is permissible to send threatening communications - basically engaging in extortion. You all should be concerned too - you may be next.
The problem with smear campaigns is that they are effective. The victim has no way to defend him or herself. Just like in the Salem witch trials - all anyone has to do is stand up and point and shout, " I SAW GOODE PROCTOR SPORTIN’ WITH THE DEVIL" And that is what happened here.
There are consequences to making false accusations, or attempting to extort people and destroy personal or professional reputations. Being a bully works for a while, because people are afraid of being the next person accused or targeted.
But eventually, someone comes along and pushes back. Bullies are always surprised to find themselves on the ground with a bloody nose - usually given by a person who stood up and said - enough.
The landowners political party isn’t relevant - except to people who are so blinded by hatred and partisanship that they believe any meme or lie told them. So the fact he leans right is enough to crucify him and his family. Will you be next? Your neighbor? The farmer down the road who lets the hunt through? Will you be the next Goode Proctor?
The fact is - EN decided to jump on a very recent political/activist bandwagon about a WORD. Words do have power, and so we of course should be careful how we use them. But in this debacle we appear to forget that it was EN who used words to intentionally harm innocent people. With threats - which they made good on.
In this case, while I understand the overtones of the word plantation - the fact is it is still a commonly used word to describe tree farming. When used in context - it is not racist nor intended to be. HOWEVER - I understand how it could be interpreted.
What concerns me more is that so many people are vitriolic about a WORD, but do not appear to care that a great many venues take place over the unmarked graves of human beings who spent their lives in bondage. Others have brought up Morven Park - the fact the name is pleasant does not mean your horses are not desecrating the graves of slaves. So I have to wonder exactly how concerned you are all about righting the wrongs of the past. There has been no effort, at many of these venues, to do any digs or identify the actual graves. But I can assure you that your xc course was not a hayfield for 200 years. But - it’s up to you if you feel ghoulish about this or not. I feel the same as if you were galloping over graves at Arlington Cemetery.
Anyway - From what I can tell the safest route for the landowner to take is to simply disengage. Personally, had I been subjected to the treatment and smear campaign - I would have made the same decision to protect myself and my family - which is, after all, a higher duty.
I’d also suggest that if the sport wants continued access to open space, you and your “journalists” comport yourself with a bit more dignity. The sport has made itself ridiculous - mostly through the actions of one or two “journalists” with an agenda. And again from what I can the sport has not furthered the cause of attracting a more diverse crowd into your ranks.
35 Likes
First post - QFP!
3 Likes
CORRECTION: A bunch of self-proclaimed “woke” people had a temper tantrum all over SoMe channels. Then EN decided to violate their role as journalists and become activists based on these very public and online temper tantrums, and then tried to force a land owner to make a change. The land owner responded in kind (with one exception - he didn’t trash the “woke” EN followers or EN openly on social channels as they have done to him). Have you ever actually witnessed a temper tantrum? They aren’t pretty. This landowner merely decided to walk away, and I don’t really blame him. Sure, it’s a shame that Denis was left with no venue, however, his anger shouldn’t be directed at the landowner (whom you continue to blame, which is really weird). His anger should be directed at the very people who tried to force the landowner to make a quick change based on others’ emotional response. Not the landowner’s.
As for the landowner, I completely respect him for walking away. When complete strangers start stalking you online to imply that you are racist and attempt to prove their point by digging into your past SoMe posts to find “conservative” content to make said point, I’d walk away as well. Any reasonable person would.
Land owner took the high road. Too bad EN and their woke followers didn’t or we would not likely have this thread and it’s 799 posts.
20 Likes
I am curious about a couple things, and am having trouble determining fact from fiction. Yes, I have read the thread…not jumping in here asking folks to fill me in, but between this board and the general interwebs, there seems to be a lot of fervor and not a lot of fact.
1- Did EN request that the event name be changed, or propose that both the event and the property itself be renamed?
2- Has any direct correspondence from EN requesting the change been made available to the public?
To summate, wondering what exactly was requested, and how. And maybe the answer is NO ONE KNOWS. Because there sure seems to be a lot of “I heard a board member threatened to release the emails because they make EN look really bad” and “I heard EN credited the land owner with all the good he did and pointed out that the name might be offensive politely” and “I heard EN only asked for the even to be changed, and had nothing to do with the landowner.”
6 Likes
For those who keep saying that Cuyler Walker was trying to withdraw from or even forestall the media firestorm – he did not do that, rather, he created it.
Alternate headlines -
“Charitable horse event ‘Plantation Fields’ reconsiders name” - small story, most media doesn’t have time or space for it.
"Horse event cancels rather than reconsider name ‘Plantation’ " - this story is MADE for current controversy, comments, eyeballs.
Walker has been around enough to be well aware of the difference. I do not believe that he was trying to ‘protect his family and property’. He knew where this was going and he went there. Whatever his reasons, that I do not know.
16 Likes
I actually agree with part of this - the landowner is obviously an intelligent person. His choice was to simply walk away. You disagree - so if you are ever subjected to a smear campaign you will most likely make a different decision. Which is your right. He has the right to make his.
Don’t underestimate the willingness of people to refuse to get into pissing contests with people they find disagreeable. Think what you want of the individuals involved - but at the end of the day the land is privately owned and was leased out. The landowner exercised his right to cancel the lease rather than continue to be drawn into an increasing hyperbolic drama.
EN was playing checkers, the landowner was playing chess. Checkmate.
34 Likes
I’ve taken a break from this thread because I needed one, but I have worked very hard to catch back up and I do have a couple of thoughts.
This is a really important post, and very educational – thank you for the background. I wholeheartedly agree that that history should not be swept under the rug, and should be recognized and understood by those who are fortunate enough to use that land in its current iteration. I hope there are places at Morven that have this information available to visitors and again, thank you for your research.
However, RE: the argument that “places where slavery happened are far more problematic than Plantation”, I would say not necessarily. Using the land for a different purpose while educating about past purposes and not celebrating them makes sense to me. Naming something A after something B is done to assign importance (generally in an endorsing sort of way) to something B. If I name my horse Stairway to Heaven, no one thinks it’s because I hate Led Zeppelin – they would assume I’m a fan.
Naming something “Plantation” implies that the namer sees positive things associated with that word. In this case, that’s exactly what happened – the namer thought positively of a group of Boy Scouts they enjoyed working with. The trouble is that this has become an international event, and it doesn’t just draw from an area of the country familiar with the property and Pennsylvania history in general. When people from other areas read “Plantation”, it brings to mind something else, and they think the person who named the property may think positively about that. It seems that he doesn’t, but they don’t know that. Why not avoid the misunderstanding, change the name, and make more people feel welcome on your beautiful property?
Exactly. Literally anyone can rock up to an event and post whatever they think on the internet, worth exactly the paper it’s written on. That’s my biggest confusion here: I still don’t understand why a mean post on an internet blog made grown adults in real life unhappy enough that they took their toys and went home. It seems like a completely disproportionate reaction.
But before @pluvinel has the chance to say “My barn, my rules” one more time (can we add that to the list of COTH drinking game rules?) I recognize that they are allowed to have whatever reaction they wish. I don’t understand this reaction, but I’m not entitled to understand either.
Agreed to every word of the above. “He is known to be outspoken/opinionated/difficult” is not a reason to allow anyone to repeatedly get their way. No one’s opinion is more valid because they shouted it loudest or made the most threats (and that definitely cuts both ways here). I work in a very corporate environment, and that is a great way to get shuffled right off the list of people we work with. Of course, it’s all complicated when you have something relatively unique to offer that is difficult to come by (like the most gorgeous piece of land in a lovely location), but conducting yourself in an unacceptable manner simply because you can is gross.
Yes. I’ve actually been the one managing the finances with respect to the transition (and yes, it was annoying, but it made us better in the long run). No one is saying these costs should have been borne by the event alone, or even at all. Others up thread suggested that it could have been crowdfunded (EN/USEA could have partnered with the event to do it, and generated plenty of positive press for everyone in doing so), or that donations could have been directed.
Not only would this have been a good decision from a marketing perspective, it would have saved money financially – you can ask anyone associated with one of these transitions and they’ll tell you the most expensive part of the whole thing is getting the new name out there and transitioning over the brand awareness. There were so many ways of doing this that were different than what ultimately happened.
Apologies for snipping a small portion of a much larger post, but it’s entirely likely that this is a symptom of the problem – people who have a problem with the name such that it keeps them away from the sport are not submitting feedback forms because they avoided the event in the first place, or even avoiding eventing as a whole. And that’s what people are trying to address in order to welcome all interested people in to a shrinking sport.
Eventing Nation is not immaculate in all of this but they absolutely did not invite/threaten/promise/encourage/endorse death threats or vandalism. Those things are and remain very much illegal, as they should be.
18 Likes
I suppose if we were to forcibly purge all words that have any association with any part of our history that anyone finds offensive we’ll have to communicate with grunts, squeals, clicks and animated hand gestures. Take the word “boy”. I used to tell my geldings “good boy”! all the time and never thought for a second I was being a racist. Somehow, I was able to differentiate the use of that word from it’s offensive and ugly use with African American males. And, as I hav already pointed out, I’m also able to differentiate the use of the word Plantation as used in 19th century Southern slave plantations and 21st century Northern tree Plantations. The damage and the stupid here is epic, for no reason. Some great advice I got a long time ago was to thicken my skin and soften my heart, I try to do that every day. Now, just for those who don’t wish to be unwitting racists, here’s some words and phrases to avoid.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/us/racism-words-phrases-slavery-trnd/index.html
25 Likes
Mr. Walker determined that whatever added value or pleasure he and his family received out of that land lease wasn’t enough to offset the social media outcry.
Which must have been noteworthy for its content, tone and frequency for him to pull the lease. After all, USEA wasn’t the only user of the land.
There is a big difference in statues of racists and traitors on government land versus what private owners do with their own property. Or name it. And yes, the leaders of CSA were traitors. And if you read the CSA constitution, or read the Cornerstone Speech given by the VP of CSA, slavery was a core value.
I suspect Mr. Walker and I would NEVER have agreed on politics. I think VHM & I have butted heads in the past. However, I am a huge proponent of private property rights.
People didn’t run the numbers when they came at Mr. Walker. He doesn’t NEED them on his land. Whatever social or financial gain he received from leasing was insufficient compared to the social media storm.
USEA may need to change its rules about what to call events. Maybe they should adopt FEI’s policy of simply using the name of the town/city where the event is held and have done with it. That would have been fair and even-handed. EN & USEA sought to punish him and instead they lost the site.
I hope there wasn’t a 4H show, hot air balloon festival or other events scheduled for later this year that have now been canceled as a result. And I feel awful for everyone who loses access in the future as a result.
16 Likes
“Eventing Nation is not immaculate in all of this but they absolutely did not invite/threaten/promise/encourage/endorse death threats or vandalism. Those things are and remain very much illegal, as they should be.”
Except we don’t know what EN/Ms. Wylie wrote to the BOD of PFEE or USEA. It was written that PFEE can’t release it legally. Per Ms. Ruth Bodum (sp).
As for fundraising, anyone who has done it knows what a lot of work it is. Being on the BOD likely means Mr. Walker was also involved in raising those donations and funds throughout the years. Again, the costs to him must have outweighed any perceived gains to him and his family.
11 Likes
OK folks… anyone who has followed along on this thread the whole time, and is seeking to understand what went on… I have to make a SIGNIFICANT correction to information I have already posted, that I originally took from an article on this whole topic, which I apparently read too quickly, and relayed on these forums inaccurately.
SO (gulp… this sucks, but I need to just own my screw up, and correct it right now because I probably inadvertently caused other people following this thread to FURTHER misunderstand this whole string of unfortunate events… and that is not a good thing.)
*** THE REST OF THIS POST IS INTENDED TO CORRECT MY EARLIER MISTAKE WHEN OUTLINING HOW EVENTS UNFOLDED BETWEEN VARIOUS PARTIES AND WHO WAS INVOLVED… AND THE CORRECTION WILL CONSEQUENTLY HELP EVERYONE UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT WENT ON WITH COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN VARIOUS KEY PEOPLE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THIS SITUATION ***
Ok… here we go…
In a few earlier posts outlining the facts of how various communications unfolded between various parties along the way, I messed up one key thing. I stated in posts on these forums that a letter from Rob Burk (CEO of USEA) went out on September 13 to PFEE, and the letter informed them that USEA intended to remove the use of the word “plantation” from all of its media and marketing communications. And it was not only sent by Rob Burk, but also signed by Rob Burk.
But after receiving a private message from a friend with direct knowledge of what went on, that I had gotten this specific detail wrong in my forum posts, I went back and re-read the three specific public source pieces of information I originally thought I had seen that info reported. They involved two reports and one editorial all recently published by The Horse of Delaware Valley. I would link to them now if I could… but I can’t. Sorry. Maybe someone else can link all three, and then anyone curious can go check out the source for themself.
In short, the key detail I made an error about the first time I posted concerning the timeline and series of communications and events by and between relevant parties on this thread related to a September 13 letter Rob Burk wrote.
But that letter actually went from Rob Burk directly to Eventing Nation (meaning John Thier and Leslie Wiley). He was informing THEM that the USEA would be removing the word plantation from its own media and marketing going forward. And apparently Rob Burk signed the letter he sent to them.[B]
Soooo - that’s what I messed up. That letter did not go from Rob Burk and USEA to PFEE. Nope. It went from Rob Burk to EN.[/B]
Picking back up with the timeline though, apparently there were still some sort of e-mail communications going on between Rob Burk, Denis Glaccum and Cuyler Walker and Mary Coldren right around the same general time frame (September 13) that Rob Burk sent that written and signed letter to EN, advising them the USEA would be removing the word “plantation” from its own media and marketing materials. There was an e-mail communication from Rob Burk with the subject “Time to Talk” sent out via email around noon on September 14… but details with respect to contents of that communication have not been made public so far. What is public knowledge now however, and has been widely shared and seen by many people at this point (and already shared on these forums) is the September 14th email REPLY that went from Mr. Walker back to Rob Burk, with Denis Glaccum and Mary Coldren copied. People have shared images of it all over the place on social media… here are the actual words involved…
*** Start of Communication ***
[I]Denis - I deeply regret that I so willingly accommodated your request over 20 years ago to host events on my property. You and your sport have had unfettered access to my property since then to do ad you please. Had I known that my hospitality would result in my family and me becoming the target of a smear campaign in the media by those who claim to support eventing, I never would have allowed any of you on the property.
Please take this as formal written notice that I am resigning from the Board of PFEE, and terminating your lease to the property.
I know that you and your board have worked miracles to make the 4* happen under the most challenging of circumstances. I hope things go well this week. Please be assured that I will stay out of your way this weekend and I will be available to work with you as you remove PFEEs equipment from the property. [/I]
*** End of Communication ***
Suffice it to say… multiple parties were then likely taking and emailing about this situation behind the scenes.
According the September 16th report in the Horse of Delaware Valley, Mr. Walker was aware of the September 13th letter that had gone out from Rob Burk to the folks at EN promising the removal of the word “plantation” from all of USEA media and marketing materials, at the time he sent that reply to Mr. Burk. Here are key excerpts from the September 16th report on this situation according to The Horse of Delaware Valley:
Start of Excerpts of Quoted HoDV Content
Following the lead of Eventing Nation, U.S. Eventing Association has condemned the name Plantation Field as a racial slur, taking political correctness to a new and ridiculous high.
Although not technically disallowing Plantation Field to hold events, refusing to use the name, choosing instead to call it P Field, makes it sound like using the N word, thus forever tying the Stewart, Hannum and Walker families to slavery.
[I]Beginning in June, Eventing Nation sent a series of letters and emails basically demanding Plantation Filed change its name, never opening a discussion or finding out the background of the name.
Reportedly, originally USEA’s board approved the name Plantation Filed but recently caved to Eventing Nation, refusing to use the name in reporting its events.[/I]
[I]Feeling that the racial slur that USEA attached to the name is inescapable in the future and unwilling to change a name that has been a proud part of the family for generations, the lease for Eventing was terminated by Cuyler Walker on Monday, Sept. 14.
The Plantation Field International Event, Sept. 17-20, will be the final eventing competition to be held on the property, a very sad event for eventers of every level, as Plantation Field has hosted events of every levels for years.[/I]
*** End of Excerpts of Quoted HoDV Content***
On September 16th, Eventing Nation decided to also publish something, which seems best described as an editorial, about this situation. They had already received the signed September 13th communication from Rob Burk of USEA at that point informing them that USEA would remove the word “plantation” from media and marketing materials to the greatest extent possible. They had also received notification from Denis Glaccum that they were not welcome to cover the event this year, due to this ongoing controversy. The editorial they first put up on their site opened with “Dear Readers” and essentially started explaining their version of what had gone on with respect to communications between multiple parties, and why they wouldn’t be present at Plantation Field this year, or covering the event. As part of their explanation to readers about this unfolding situation, they also explained their thought process and position on the word “plantation” and their desire for the event name to have been changed THIS year. Here are some key excerpts of quoted content from the September 16th “The Problem with Plantation” piece that EN posted:
Start of Excerpts of Quoted EN Content
Here at EN, our team’s education has been and continues to be ongoing. Our learning curve when it comes to fighting racism has been steep, and we’ve had our own missteps in efforts to grow and change. But we feel strongly that we should use our platform to help address issues that are facing our sport. We have been encouraged to see USEA and USEF prioritizing diversity and inclusion efforts as well.
To that end, one thing that we have become aware of is the troubling associations inherent in the name Plantation Field. Specifically, the word “plantation.”
[I]***
We believe strongly that the people associated with this event never had any objective to offend with the event’s name. In fact, the proceeds from the 2016 Plantation Field event went to benefit Work to Ride, which gives disadvantaged urban youth the opportunity to learn to ride and care for horses.
We also believe that we do not have the right to determine what others are offended by.
[/I]
We have heard from BIPOC equestrians that the name is problematic for them. One was asked to groom there by a friend and agreed to go, resigned to the fact that “horse people just don’t understand” why the word plantation does not conjure up a peaceful, pleasant scene. Asking people of color to come visit, to spectate, volunteer, or compete, at a place called Plantation is insensitive at best and works against our efforts to implement more diversity in the sport. If we truly want eventing to grow, should we not embrace opportunities to demonstrate our commitment to inclusion?
[I][/I]
[I]EN reached out to USEA and USEF in June to express our concerns about the Plantation Field name. But change is often a slow moving train, especially with organizations where there are multiple channels of bureaucracy to move through. As the event drew nearer it became clear that a name change would not materialize. We had to make a decision as a media outlet about our own path forward, and we agreed that we were no longer comfortable using the word “plantation” on our website. After engaging the event to explore alternative ways we might reference the event, such as the FEI nomenclature of ‘Unionville,’ we were informed by Plantation Field founder Denis Glaccum that EN was not welcome to attend nor cover the event. With regret we will be honoring that directive.
These issues are not going away. Our team stands firmly as allies of riders of all races, backgrounds, and sexual orientations. As the wider lens of society shows us, it’s time to make decisions that further our sport for the better, creating an inclusive and welcoming environment for all, not just those who already participate.[/I]
While we won’t be covering Plantation Field this weekend (and this will be the final time we refer to the event as such), we hope to return in the future and would love to applaud its leadership for updating the event’s name to one more befitting of the area’s abolitionist history. We know that the eventing community at large would as well.
End of Excerpts of Quoted EN Content
As the day of September 16th rolled on however, Denis Glaccum of PFEE released a statement that this would be their last event, and their general side of the story and series of events. I won’t make this post any longer than necessary by requoting all that. But after the PFEE statement was released, EN updated their post, “The Problem with Plantation” with the following:
Start of Quoted EN Content
Updated 9/16 2:39 p.m. eastern: Denis Glaccum, President, PFI Events, Inc., announced this afternoon that Cuyler Walker, a PFEE Board member and landowner, has cancelled the lease for the property. Mr. Walker notified PFI Events and the USEA of this decision earlier in the week on Monday, Sept. 14. The loss of this event is a significant one for our sport. Our intention was to open a discussion, guided by the governing organizations, to make sure diverse BIPOC would be welcomed and included in every area of eventing. We are deeply saddened that the property owner has chosen this path rather than join us in an open discussion about inclusivity as it reflects on the name of this iconic venue.
End of Quoted EN Content
Everyone proceeded to go bananas for the rest of September 16th. Apparently though, at some point USEA got on the phone with the Horse of Delaware Valley, spoke to the m about the situation, and have them a statement about the situation. Apparently, other parties involved also communicated directly with the Horse of Delaware Valley. And on September 17th, the HoDV put out a report titled, “Statement from USEA on the loss of Plantation Field”
Start of Excerpts of Quoted HoDV Content
[I]The Horse of Delaware Valley received the statement at the bottom of this article from USEA following a telephone conversation with Rob Burk during which he said the USEA had worked all along to come to a mutually satisfactory resolution as to the use of the name Plantation Field.
However, in a letter to Eventing Nation dated Sept. 13 and signed by Rob Burk that The Horse received from a lawyer, Burk stated, “For your information, the USEA will be making clear moves to remove the use of the word plantation from our media, marketing and communications. Those moves will be made after we have been able to go through the proper channels and notify all involved with the competition and important stakeholders.”
The Horse was told that this was the final straw that caused Plantation Field owner Cuyler Walker to terminate the lease.[/I]
[I]A JOINT statement from the United States Eventing Association (USEA) CEO Rob Burk and USEA President Max Corcoran.
“Having this historic competition close isn’t the right result for the sport, and the USEA is working hard to find a solution. The organizer and landowners operate exceptional events on a beautiful piece of land. We are deeply sensitive to the history of the word “plantation” and its connection to slavery; however, this property has no known connections to slavery and was instead named after ‘plantings’ on the property. We understand that neither the organizer nor the landowners have ever intended to cause any discomfort related to the name of the event and to imply otherwise is a disservice to our organizers, landowners, and our sport. The USEA does not have the ability to require an event to change its name as we are required to carry the USEF licensed name of the competition on our calendar of events. However, we are hopeful that an acceptable solution to this issue can be reached.”[/I]
*** End of Excerpts of Quoted HoDV Content***
Shortly after this, also on September 17th, EN reported USEA’s joint statement, which had already been reported by the Horse of Delaware Valley, and provided the following comment on the matter:
Start of Quoted EN Content
As EN expressed in an editorial Wednesday, as was shared in a post today, and as we’ve seen reflected in many comments by our readers, the venue’s name carries significant negative connotations for some people. EN would like to reiterate that we do not believe it was ever the event’s intention to cause offense. The event’s cancellation was never the intention of our discussions between ourselves and the governing bodies, which have been ongoing since June 26, nor was it ever a condition of ours for covering this event.
This venue is an important fixture on the U.S. eventing calendar and one that we look forward to each year. It is unfortunate that the event’s stakeholders chose to cancel the event rather than entertain the possibility that their venue name may be offensive to an important population of our eventing community. We hope to see USEA and USEF demonstrate more follow-through in their commitments to prioritizing diversity and inclusion in our sport going forward.
End of Quoted EN Content
And finally, on the afternoon of September 17th, COTH put out a thorough report written by Lindsey Berreth which contained a number of quotes from various people. It also provided additional insight into the role USEF played in this situation. The title of the report was, “Name Controversy Ends Plantation Field Events”
Start of Quoted Excerpts of COTH Content
[I]In June, writers from eventing blog EventingNation.com approached the U.S. Eventing Association and Jenni Autry, the USEF managing director of eventing, about concerns over the connotations of the name due to the word plantation and its association with slavery. USEA leadership began looking into the issue, though the organization does not license or approve events; the USEF does.
On Aug. 19, Eventing Nation editor Leslie Wylie took the topic to Denis Glaccum, organizer and owner of Plantation Field Equestrian Events.
Glaccum and Walker did not agree to change the name of the 300-acre site, which has been in the Walker family for generations.[/I]
[I]***
“Plantation Field will not change its name,” Glaccum said a day before the lease was terminated. “The owner has said that and considers it an insult to his grandfather and a lot of people who don’t know what they’re talking about. [Eventing Nation] believes ‘plantation’ should be never used again. That’s an extreme view, and it’s nonsense. I never even thought of the word in that context. I’ve explained all this to [Wylie] and others, and said, you really don’t know your history because this is an abolitionist area, part of the Underground Railroad. This property was never farmed until the 20[SUP]th[/SUP]century when it was nothing more than grass and hay. There was no slavery involved, I can assure you that.”
Glaccum added, “It’s like tearing a statue down. What good is tearing down for ending racial division? Absolutely nothing, it creates more. So no, there’s not going to be a name change.”
Wylie said they tried to go through official channels and pursue the most diplomatic route. “EN’s actions and communications in this situation were consistently chosen with the goal of minimizing negative escalation and maximizing the potential for a positive change,” she said. “We, like many in our community, are extremely disappointed in the end result. If the event’s stakeholders feel attacked, I think that is more a testament to the divisive and polarizing culture we live in than to our specific communications with them.”
When Wylie informed Glaccum that the website’s writers would no longer refer to the event as Plantation Field, they were asked not to attend or cover the competition. USEA and USEF officials have made no formal announcements about how they will refer to the event, but the USEF sent out a press release on Sept. 3 initially using the word Unionville, then later correcting it to say Plantation Field.
USEF CEO Bill Moroney sent the Chronicle this statement: “As a nation, we are working to address our past failures and injustices and—as part of that reconciliation—we must acknowledge that words and language can have a hurtful and divisive impact. U.S. Equestrian has no authority over event or venue names, but we understand and agree with the serious concerns given the history associated with the word plantation. USEF is examining our existing licensing policies with respect to events and names which could be offensive. Separately, USEF and the U.S. Eventing Association are working together on ways to address the implications of the loss of this venue and how we can best serve the interests of eventing going forward.”
Wylie said they’ve heard from several people of color who are uncomfortable with the word.
“It is important that these conversations take place, and it is equally important that all participants come to the table with a view of genuine good intentions on the parts of all parties,” said Wylie. “We all must be adults and have rational, calm, thoughtful discussions with one another on these topics; we must be willing to listen to each other’s perspective and not discount the experiences of others.”
As they proceeded, Wylie and EN owner John Thier knew the loss of the event might be the outcome. In an email shared with the Chronicle, dated Aug. 28, Olympic rider and PFEE board member Boyd Martin wrote, “The worst case outcome for us in the Eventing world is that if the landowner gets so offended with this issue that he decides to kick the event off his land and we lose the venue for the sport we love and need.” Thier responded, “There are many worse outcomes for Eventing in the US than losing the PFI venue, such as the sport not standing up for what is right.”[/I]
[I]PFEE board members also said EN invoked the threat of mainstream media coverage if the event did not change its name.
Olympian Phillip Dutton, who’s based in nearby West Grove, serves on the PFEE board of directors, along with his wife Evie Dutton and Martin.
Speaking from the competition grounds, Dutton said, “From my point of view, I think it’s extremely disappointing. Obviously everybody’s sympathetic to the wording and naming and making sure we’re current[/I] [I]and not feeling that anybody’s slighted by the name, but I think there should have been a better way to go about it and have a meeting with the landowners and explain it all.
“It’s just a shame it was forced on, to a degree, to Cuyler Walker,” he continued. “He’s just a private landowner and basically giving us this land for virtually no return on his behalf. I just wish that it could have been handled better because it is an important venue for our sport and also our community. He’s a very community-minded person and family-minded person, and I don’t think he ever expected this would be something he would have to go through because of the name of the field we’re using.”[/I]
End of Excerpts of Quoted COTH Content
And, mainstream media coverage of this controversy did INDEED follow. On September 18, the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote an article about this situation, and then on September 21st, he New York Times published an article with the following title:
“Estate’s Racially Divisive Name Threatens Future of Premier Equestrian Event“
Yikes. What a headline to have in the NYT about your family property. No thanks :no:
And that is where we now stand.
Yes… this is a long long comprehensive account of various reports that we have all already discussed ad nauseous, including quotes and statements from various people involved… but I wanted to make sure that I got details RIGHT this time, and quotes directly from all publicly available sources of information in order to do that.
What we all still do not know for sure, is the tone and tenor of the communications that went back and forth between Leslie Wiley and Denis Glaccum in August and September. But what is clear from this series of communications, is that there was a STRONG push from those at EN to achieve a name change in relation to this event, on an incredibly tight timeline, and they were not interested in taking no for any answer. It also seems as though USEF supported these efforts to a certain extent. I’m not completely clear on what USEA’s role was in the situation as it went along, but I do find the letter that Rob Burk apparently felt a need to send to Leslie Wiley and EN on September 13th in some sort of last ditch attempt to pacify them truly remarkable.
I do not understand why EN wielded so much influence over a number of individuals with the governing bodies, but signs seem to point towards the existence of a sympathetic audience at USEF. And again, Jenni Autry is the Managing Director of Eventing with USEF, but she assumed that role as of 2019, and prior to that time she was an employee of EN, and apparently has a very strong personal relationship with Leslie Wiley. Furthermore, Jenni Autry’s position with USEF is a paid one (unlike other individuals involved, who were serving roles on various Boards, which typically means they are unpaid). It seems to me that there is a strong reason for folks to wonder if a conflict of interest impacted Jenni Autry’s decisions in this situation, and this contributed to the unfortunate outcome abc the loss of the venue entirely. But I don’t know that for a fact… that’s just what these reports all indicate to me, when looked at in a comprehensive and coherent way.
I’m having trouble figuring out why some people feel that having a clearly defined contract is irrelevant to “moral obligations.”
If I’m the only boarding barn within hours of your home and we have a contract for 20 years and all of a sudden you go postal, I’m going to use that contract to evict you. There’s no moral obligation on my part to meeting your demands or thinking about the time we have invested.
26 Likes
OK folks… anyone who has followed along on this thread the whole time, and is seeking to understand what went on… I have to make a SIGNIFICANT correction to information I have already posted, that I originally took from an article on this whole topic, which I apparently read too quickly, and relayed on these forums inaccurately.
SO (gulp… this stinks, but I want to be responsible in correcting the record and owning my error, and correct it right now.)
[B]*** THE REST OF THIS POST IS INTENDED TO CORRECT MY EARLIER MISTAKE WHEN OUTLINING HOW EVENTS UNFOLDED BETWEEN VARIOUS PARTIES AND WHO WAS INVOLVED… AND THE CORRECTION WILL CONSEQUENTLY HELP EVERYONE UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT WENT ON WITH COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN VARIOUS KEY PEOPLE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THIS SITUATION ***
This is a super long one, because I am splicing in quotes from the various reports and parties involved (their story in their own words)… but it should be effective in terms of people understanding exactly what went on, and what role various folks played. At least… that’s my intention by putting the effort I did into this post.[/B]
Ok… here we go…
In a few earlier posts outlining the facts of how various communications unfolded between various parties along the way, I messed up one key thing. I stated in posts on these forums that a letter from Rob Burk (CEO of USEA) went out on September 13 to PFEE, and the letter informed them that USEA intended to remove the use of the word “plantation” from all of its media and marketing communications. And it was not only sent by Rob Burk, but also signed by Rob Burk.
But after receiving a private message from a friend with direct knowledge of what went on, that I had gotten this specific detail wrong in my forum posts, I went back and re-read the three specific public source pieces of information I originally thought I had seen that info reported. They involved two reports and one editorial all recently published by The Horse of Delaware Valley. I would link to them now if I could… but I can’t. Sorry. Maybe someone else can link all three, and then anyone curious can go check out the source for themself.
In short, the key detail I made an error about the first time I posted concerning the timeline and series of communications and events by and between relevant parties on this thread related to a September 13 letter Rob Burk wrote.
But that letter actually went from Rob Burk directly to Eventing Nation (meaning John Thier and Leslie Wiley). He was informing THEM that the USEA would be removing the word plantation from its own media and marketing going forward. And apparently Rob Burk signed the letter he sent to them.
Soooo - that’s what I messed up. That letter did not go from Rob Burk and USEA to PFEE. Nope. It went from Rob Burk to EN.
Picking back up with the timeline though, apparently there were still some sort of e-mail communications going on between Rob Burk, Denis Glaccum and Cuyler Walker and Mary Coldren right around the same general time frame (September 13) that Rob Burk sent that written and signed letter to EN, advising them the USEA would be removing the word “plantation” from its own media and marketing materials. There was an e-mail communication from Rob Burk with the subject “Time to Talk” sent out via email around noon on September 14… but details with respect to contents of that communication have not been made public so far. What is public knowledge now however, and has been widely shared and seen by many people at this point (and already shared on these forums) is the September 14th email REPLY that went from Mr. Walker back to Rob Burk, with Denis Glaccum and Mary Coldren copied. People have shared images of it all over the place on social media… here are the actual words involved…
*** Start of Communication ***
[I]Denis - I deeply regret that I so willingly accommodated your request over 20 years ago to host events on my property. You and your sport have had unfettered access to my property since then to do ad you please. Had I known that my hospitality would result in my family and me becoming the target of a smear campaign in the media by those who claim to support eventing, I never would have allowed any of you on the property.
Please take this as formal written notice that I am resigning from the Board of PFEE, and terminating your lease to the property.
I know that you and your board have worked miracles to make the 4* happen under the most challenging of circumstances. I hope things go well this week. Please be assured that I will stay out of your way this weekend and I will be available to work with you as you remove PFEEs equipment from the property. [/I]
*** End of Communication ***
Suffice it to say… multiple parties were then likely taking and emailing about this situation behind the scenes.
According the September 16th report in the Horse of Delaware Valley, Mr. Walker was aware of the September 13th letter that had gone out from Rob Burk to the folks at EN promising the removal of the word “plantation” from all of USEA media and marketing materials, at the time he sent that reply to Mr. Burk. Here are key excerpts from the September 16th report on this situation according to The Horse of Delaware Valley:
Start of Excerpts of Quoted HoDV Content
Following the lead of Eventing Nation, U.S. Eventing Association has condemned the name Plantation Field as a racial slur, taking political correctness to a new and ridiculous high.
Although not technically disallowing Plantation Field to hold events, refusing to use the name, choosing instead to call it P Field, makes it sound like using the N word, thus forever tying the Stewart, Hannum and Walker families to slavery.
[I]Beginning in June, Eventing Nation sent a series of letters and emails basically demanding Plantation Filed change its name, never opening a discussion or finding out the background of the name.
Reportedly, originally USEA’s board approved the name Plantation Filed but recently caved to Eventing Nation, refusing to use the name in reporting its events.[/I]
[I]Feeling that the racial slur that USEA attached to the name is inescapable in the future and unwilling to change a name that has been a proud part of the family for generations, the lease for Eventing was terminated by Cuyler Walker on Monday, Sept. 14.
The Plantation Field International Event, Sept. 17-20, will be the final eventing competition to be held on the property, a very sad event for eventers of every level, as Plantation Field has hosted events of every levels for years.[/I]
*** End of Excerpts of Quoted HoDV Content***
On September 16th, Eventing Nation decided to also publish something, which seems best described as an editorial, about this situation. They had already received the signed September 13th communication from Rob Burk of USEA at that point informing them that USEA would remove the word “plantation” from media and marketing materials to the greatest extent possible. They had also received notification from Denis Glaccum that they were not welcome to cover the event this year, due to this ongoing controversy. The editorial they first put up on their site opened with “Dear Readers” and essentially started explaining their version of what had gone on with respect to communications between multiple parties, and why they wouldn’t be present at Plantation Field this year, or covering the event. As part of their explanation to readers about this unfolding situation, they also explained their thought process and position on the word “plantation” and their desire for the event name to have been changed THIS year. Here are some key excerpts of quoted content from the September 16th “The Problem with Plantation” piece that EN posted:
Start of Excerpts of Quoted EN Content
Here at EN, our team’s education has been and continues to be ongoing. Our learning curve when it comes to fighting racism has been steep, and we’ve had our own missteps in efforts to grow and change. But we feel strongly that we should use our platform to help address issues that are facing our sport. We have been encouraged to see USEA and USEF prioritizing diversity and inclusion efforts as well.
To that end, one thing that we have become aware of is the troubling associations inherent in the name Plantation Field. Specifically, the word “plantation.”
[I]***
We believe strongly that the people associated with this event never had any objective to offend with the event’s name. In fact, the proceeds from the 2016 Plantation Field event went to benefit Work to Ride, which gives disadvantaged urban youth the opportunity to learn to ride and care for horses.
We also believe that we do not have the right to determine what others are offended by.
[/I]
We have heard from BIPOC equestrians that the name is problematic for them. One was asked to groom there by a friend and agreed to go, resigned to the fact that “horse people just don’t understand” why the word plantation does not conjure up a peaceful, pleasant scene. Asking people of color to come visit, to spectate, volunteer, or compete, at a place called Plantation is insensitive at best and works against our efforts to implement more diversity in the sport. If we truly want eventing to grow, should we not embrace opportunities to demonstrate our commitment to inclusion?
[I][/I]
[I]EN reached out to USEA and USEF in June to express our concerns about the Plantation Field name. But change is often a slow moving train, especially with organizations where there are multiple channels of bureaucracy to move through. As the event drew nearer it became clear that a name change would not materialize. We had to make a decision as a media outlet about our own path forward, and we agreed that we were no longer comfortable using the word “plantation” on our website. After engaging the event to explore alternative ways we might reference the event, such as the FEI nomenclature of ‘Unionville,’ we were informed by Plantation Field founder Denis Glaccum that EN was not welcome to attend nor cover the event. With regret we will be honoring that directive.
These issues are not going away. Our team stands firmly as allies of riders of all races, backgrounds, and sexual orientations. As the wider lens of society shows us, it’s time to make decisions that further our sport for the better, creating an inclusive and welcoming environment for all, not just those who already participate.[/I]
While we won’t be covering Plantation Field this weekend (and this will be the final time we refer to the event as such), we hope to return in the future and would love to applaud its leadership for updating the event’s name to one more befitting of the area’s abolitionist history. We know that the eventing community at large would as well.
End of Excerpts of Quoted EN Content
As the day of September 16th rolled on however, Denis Glaccum of PFEE released a statement that this would be their last event, and their general side of the story and series of events. I won’t make this post any longer than necessary by requoting all that. But after the PFEE statement was released, EN updated their post, “The Problem with Plantation” with the following:
Start of Quoted EN Content
Updated 9/16 2:39 p.m. eastern: Denis Glaccum, President, PFI Events, Inc., announced this afternoon that Cuyler Walker, a PFEE Board member and landowner, has cancelled the lease for the property. Mr. Walker notified PFI Events and the USEA of this decision earlier in the week on Monday, Sept. 14. The loss of this event is a significant one for our sport. Our intention was to open a discussion, guided by the governing organizations, to make sure diverse BIPOC would be welcomed and included in every area of eventing. We are deeply saddened that the property owner has chosen this path rather than join us in an open discussion about inclusivity as it reflects on the name of this iconic venue.
End of Quoted EN Content
Everyone proceeded to go bananas for the rest of September 16th. Apparently though, at some point USEA got on the phone with the Horse of Delaware Valley, spoke to the m about the situation, and have them a statement about the situation. Apparently, other parties involved also communicated directly with the Horse of Delaware Valley. And on September 17th, the HoDV put out a report titled, “Statement from USEA on the loss of Plantation Field”
Start of Excerpts of Quoted HoDV Content
[I]The Horse of Delaware Valley received the statement at the bottom of this article from USEA following a telephone conversation with Rob Burk during which he said the USEA had worked all along to come to a mutually satisfactory resolution as to the use of the name Plantation Field.
However, in a letter to Eventing Nation dated Sept. 13 and signed by Rob Burk that The Horse received from a lawyer, Burk stated, “For your information, the USEA will be making clear moves to remove the use of the word plantation from our media, marketing and communications. Those moves will be made after we have been able to go through the proper channels and notify all involved with the competition and important stakeholders.”
The Horse was told that this was the final straw that caused Plantation Field owner Cuyler Walker to terminate the lease.[/I]
[I]A JOINT statement from the United States Eventing Association (USEA) CEO Rob Burk and USEA President Max Corcoran.
“Having this historic competition close isn’t the right result for the sport, and the USEA is working hard to find a solution. The organizer and landowners operate exceptional events on a beautiful piece of land. We are deeply sensitive to the history of the word “plantation” and its connection to slavery; however, this property has no known connections to slavery and was instead named after ‘plantings’ on the property. We understand that neither the organizer nor the landowners have ever intended to cause any discomfort related to the name of the event and to imply otherwise is a disservice to our organizers, landowners, and our sport. The USEA does not have the ability to require an event to change its name as we are required to carry the USEF licensed name of the competition on our calendar of events. However, we are hopeful that an acceptable solution to this issue can be reached.”[/I]
*** End of Excerpts of Quoted HoDV Content***
Shortly after this, also on September 17th, EN reported USEA’s joint statement, which had already been reported by the Horse of Delaware Valley, and provided the following comment on the matter:
Start of Quoted EN Content
As EN expressed in an editorial Wednesday, as was shared in a post today, and as we’ve seen reflected in many comments by our readers, the venue’s name carries significant negative connotations for some people. EN would like to reiterate that we do not believe it was ever the event’s intention to cause offense. The event’s cancellation was never the intention of our discussions between ourselves and the governing bodies, which have been ongoing since June 26, nor was it ever a condition of ours for covering this event.
This venue is an important fixture on the U.S. eventing calendar and one that we look forward to each year. It is unfortunate that the event’s stakeholders chose to cancel the event rather than entertain the possibility that their venue name may be offensive to an important population of our eventing community. We hope to see USEA and USEF demonstrate more follow-through in their commitments to prioritizing diversity and inclusion in our sport going forward.
End of Quoted EN Content
And finally, on the afternoon of September 17th, COTH put out a thorough report written by Lindsey Berreth which contained a number of quotes from various people. It also provided additional insight into the role USEF played in this situation. The title of the report was, “Name Controversy Ends Plantation Field Events”
Start of Quoted Excerpts of COTH Content
[I]In June, writers from eventing blog EventingNation.com approached the U.S. Eventing Association and Jenni Autry, the USEF managing director of eventing, about concerns over the connotations of the name due to the word plantation and its association with slavery. USEA leadership began looking into the issue, though the organization does not license or approve events; the USEF does.
On Aug. 19, Eventing Nation editor Leslie Wylie took the topic to Denis Glaccum, organizer and owner of Plantation Field Equestrian Events.
Glaccum and Walker did not agree to change the name of the 300-acre site, which has been in the Walker family for generations.[/I]
[I]***
“Plantation Field will not change its name,” Glaccum said a day before the lease was terminated. “The owner has said that and considers it an insult to his grandfather and a lot of people who don’t know what they’re talking about. [Eventing Nation] believes ‘plantation’ should be never used again. That’s an extreme view, and it’s nonsense. I never even thought of the word in that context. I’ve explained all this to [Wylie] and others, and said, you really don’t know your history because this is an abolitionist area, part of the Underground Railroad. This property was never farmed until the 20[SUP]th[/SUP]century when it was nothing more than grass and hay. There was no slavery involved, I can assure you that.”
Glaccum added, “It’s like tearing a statue down. What good is tearing down for ending racial division? Absolutely nothing, it creates more. So no, there’s not going to be a name change.”
Wylie said they tried to go through official channels and pursue the most diplomatic route. “EN’s actions and communications in this situation were consistently chosen with the goal of minimizing negative escalation and maximizing the potential for a positive change,” she said. “We, like many in our community, are extremely disappointed in the end result. If the event’s stakeholders feel attacked, I think that is more a testament to the divisive and polarizing culture we live in than to our specific communications with them.”
When Wylie informed Glaccum that the website’s writers would no longer refer to the event as Plantation Field, they were asked not to attend or cover the competition. USEA and USEF officials have made no formal announcements about how they will refer to the event, but the USEF sent out a press release on Sept. 3 initially using the word Unionville, then later correcting it to say Plantation Field.
USEF CEO Bill Moroney sent the Chronicle this statement: “As a nation, we are working to address our past failures and injustices and—as part of that reconciliation—we must acknowledge that words and language can have a hurtful and divisive impact. U.S. Equestrian has no authority over event or venue names, but we understand and agree with the serious concerns given the history associated with the word plantation. USEF is examining our existing licensing policies with respect to events and names which could be offensive. Separately, USEF and the U.S. Eventing Association are working together on ways to address the implications of the loss of this venue and how we can best serve the interests of eventing going forward.”
Wylie said they’ve heard from several people of color who are uncomfortable with the word.
“It is important that these conversations take place, and it is equally important that all participants come to the table with a view of genuine good intentions on the parts of all parties,” said Wylie. “We all must be adults and have rational, calm, thoughtful discussions with one another on these topics; we must be willing to listen to each other’s perspective and not discount the experiences of others.”
As they proceeded, Wylie and EN owner John Thier knew the loss of the event might be the outcome. In an email shared with the Chronicle, dated Aug. 28, Olympic rider and PFEE board member Boyd Martin wrote, “The worst case outcome for us in the Eventing world is that if the landowner gets so offended with this issue that he decides to kick the event off his land and we lose the venue for the sport we love and need.” Thier responded, “There are many worse outcomes for Eventing in the US than losing the PFI venue, such as the sport not standing up for what is right.”[/I]
[I]PFEE board members also said EN invoked the threat of mainstream media coverage if the event did not change its name.
Olympian Phillip Dutton, who’s based in nearby West Grove, serves on the PFEE board of directors, along with his wife Evie Dutton and Martin.
Speaking from the competition grounds, Dutton said, “From my point of view, I think it’s extremely disappointing. Obviously everybody’s sympathetic to the wording and naming and making sure we’re current[/I] [I]and not feeling that anybody’s slighted by the name, but I think there should have been a better way to go about it and have a meeting with the landowners and explain it all.
“It’s just a shame it was forced on, to a degree, to Cuyler Walker,” he continued. “He’s just a private landowner and basically giving us this land for virtually no return on his behalf. I just wish that it could have been handled better because it is an important venue for our sport and also our community. He’s a very community-minded person and family-minded person, and I don’t think he ever expected this would be something he would have to go through because of the name of the field we’re using.”[/I]
End of Excerpts of Quoted COTH Content
And, mainstream media coverage of this controversy did INDEED follow. On September 18, the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote an article about this situation, and then on September 21st, he New York Times published an article with the following title:
“Estate’s Racially Divisive Name Threatens Future of Premier Equestrian Event“
Yikes. What a headline to have in the NYT about your family property. No thanks :no:
And that is where we now stand.
Yes… this is a long long comprehensive account of various reports that we have all already discussed ad nauseous, including quotes and statements from various people involved… but I wanted to make sure that I got details RIGHT this time, and quotes directly from all publicly available sources of information in order to do that.
What we all still do not know for sure, is the tone and tenor of the communications that went back and forth between Leslie Wiley and Denis Glaccum in August and September. But what is clear from this series of communications, is that there was a STRONG push from those at EN to achieve a name change in relation to this event, on an incredibly tight timeline, and they were not interested in taking no for any answer. It also seems as though USEF supported these efforts to a certain extent. I’m not completely clear on what USEA’s role was in the situation as it went along, but I do find the letter that Rob Burk apparently felt a need to send to Leslie Wiley and EN on September 13th in some sort of last ditch attempt to pacify them truly remarkable.
I do not understand why EN wielded so much influence over a number of individuals with the governing bodies, but signs seem to point towards the existence of a sympathetic audience at USEF. And again, Jenni Autry is the Managing Director of Eventing with USEF, but she assumed that role as of 2019, and prior to that time she was an employee of EN, and apparently has a very strong personal relationship with Leslie Wiley. Furthermore, Jenni Autry’s position with USEF is a paid one (unlike other individuals involved, who were serving roles on various Boards, which typically means they are unpaid). It seems to me that there is a strong reason for folks to wonder if a conflict of interest impacted Jenni Autry’s decisions in this situation, and this contributed to the unfortunate outcome abc the loss of the venue entirely. But I don’t know that for a fact… that’s just what these reports all indicate to me, when looked at in a comprehensive and coherent way.
Sometimes people (or groups, or people pretending to be journalists) have to think about what their actions will cause.
If anyone had asked before this issue - what is the likely outcome of announcing a wealthy white republican is insisting on using a word that we say is racist? - I would bet the answer would have been very consistent with what is happening to this land owner. That is the climate we live in now. All that has to happen is someone needs to claim something and the social media storm attacks them.
So maybe EN is not doing those things but not for the fact that they started this mess…
5 Likes
