Eventing Nation booted from covering Event in Unionville, PA

[chaserider]

What Pluvinel said.

I would just like to ask LW and the Powers That Be at EN: What did you THINK might happen? Is your mission to be a political publication or to inform your readers about all things equestrian/eventing? Did you think FOR JUST ONE MINUTE of what the consequences COULD be if you got pushback from the LO and the committee? Do you feel bad about how things went or do you take any responsibility for the fact that there is now one less venue for eventers? Did POC benefit from this at all?

If this had been approached differently, perhaps the committee might have had clinics for/demos by young equestrians of color, encouraged attendance by children in poor schools to attend free of charge to introduce them to the sport, scholarships, etc. A great deal of good could have come from a different approach to this, but that opportunity has been missed.

[Djones]

@Equkelly

Because it sparked a conversation that clearly needed to be had. Lots of people did not know what that word meant to certain people and have since taken the time to learn. Unfortunately just as many people know what that word means to some people and just don’t care because that word is meaningless to them therefore should be meaningless to everyone.

If you can read 65 pages of COTH posts you can read what black equestrians have to say about all this.

A very small number of people have argued that the word plantation does not offend any POC.

The vast majority of “us” who think the fight about the name of Plantation Field is misguided at best are coming from a position of understanding that the word has TWO common uses in present and past language. One has offensive connotations and one is entirely neutral. Like the examples above of bitch and boy.

[Equkelly]

@Djones

A very small number of people have argued that the word plantation does not offend any POC.

The vast majority of “us” who think the fight about the name of Plantation Field is misguided at best are coming from a position of understanding that the word has TWO common uses in present and past language. One has offensive connotations and one is entirely neutral. Like the examples above of bitch and boy.

Ok so if we’re supposed to be trying to be inclusive why do we get to pick the most convenient definition to white people and tell POC they don’t get to hurt by it? And also if the word is so “meaningless” why do we have 65 pages arguing about how “meaningless” it is? Why can’t we all just collectively say “ ok you know what? I personally did not see how that word could be hurtful and I personally did not understand the offense, but if it makes even one person of color feel heard and included then it should change.”

[trubandloki]

@Equkelly

Ok so if we’re supposed to be trying to be inclusive why do we get to pick the most convenient definition to white people and tell POC they don’t get to hurt by it? And also if the word is so “meaningless” why do we have 65 pages arguing about how “meaningless” it is? Why can’t we all just collectively say “ ok you know what? I personally did not see how that word could be hurtful and I personally did not understand the offense, but if it makes even one person of color feel heard and included then it should change.”

I think the point being made by lots is that if this situation had been handled in a more professional manner (or professional manner at all) this could have been a win win.

The land owner and the organization who run this show could have had some good PR bits about the new name. The causes that this non-profit supported could have had some good PR bits about the new name. And yippeee, a new name that everyone could embrace and enjoy.
The details about all the good that could have happened if this request was not shoved down throats have been posted previously, several times.

[pluvinel]

@Equkelly

Ok so if we’re supposed to be trying to be inclusive why do we get to pick the most convenient definition to white people and tell POC they don’t get to hurt by it? And also if the word is so “meaningless” why do we have 65 pages arguing about how “meaningless” it is? Why can’t we all just collectively say “ ok you know what? I personally did not see how that word could be hurtful and I personally did not understand the offense, but if it makes even one person of color feel heard and included then it should change.”

You are confusing 3 issues:
(1) A landowner’s right to call his/her property whatever he/she wants
(2) A landowner’s right to determine who has access to his/her property
(3) Society’s concerns about language, inclusion, diversity…etc and whether an outside entity can demand that a private landowner do its bidding.

The way this is being handled…and this post is an example…does not recognize the landowner’s right to do with his land per the terms of the lease agreement.

This thread is an example for why private landowners should be very reluctant to open their property to the public or to hold equestrian events on their land.

Which does nothing to improve the stated goal of improving diversity and increasing access to underserved populations.

[anon6923113]

@pluvinel

So getting back on topic…as I understand the facts:

• An internet publication decides to take up a political cause.
• About 3 months before a major event is scheduled to take place, this publication starts to agitate to change the name under which the event has been held for 20 years and that is based on the historic name of the property.
• The historic name of the property dates back to when a troop of Boy Scouts planted some trees, thus giving this field the name, "Plantation Field."
• The name has nothing to do with slavery and the area is known for its abolitionist history.
• The land owner, organizer and board were not receptive to name change (for whatever reasons.....which can include "Just because")
• A member of the organization's board warned the publication that if they persisted with pushing this agenda, they could precipitate loss of the venue.
• The publication replied, "Too bad".....or something to that effect, (which I don't want to take time to find)
• The publication persisted in pushing the name change by going to various sanctioning bodies
• The event's access to the venue ends when the lease was terminated
• The publication then escalates by publicizing the organizer and landowner's reluctance change names and infer a charge of being racist in major newspapers including the NYT.

Tell me how any of this advances the cause of inclusion and diversity......and helps improve access to private lands for eventing competitions?

The only thing I would add is that the Managing Director of Eventing with USEF (Jenni Autry) and the CEO of USEA (Rob Burk) were apparently looped in on communications related to this situation…

but apparently failed to come up with a way of defusing tensions between key folks. They also failed to head off damaging publicity for the sport of eventing. And they failed to effectively communicate with a significant, longtime sponsor of the sport, a d owner of a major competition venue, and reassure that stakeholder that his significant financial support of the sport was actually appreciated by the eventing community in the US.

We’ve all been arguing a lot about the word “plantation” and discussing EN’s role in this mess.

Maybe it would be more effective and constructive if the thread refocused for a bit on the management failure of certain folks in charge at the governing bodies. The two people I mentioned are paid, full time employees. They really should have more to say about this situation, in my opinion.

Why did this mess result in BOTH the loss of a major venue, AND horrible publicity for the sport? That seems a really suboptimal outcome, by any standard.

[ghst13]

@Virginia Horse Mom

The only thing I would add is that the Managing Director of Eventing with USEF (Jenni Autry) and the CEO of USEA (Rob Burk) were apparently looped in on communications related to this situation…

but apparently failed to come up with a way of defusing tensions between key folks. They also failed to head off damaging publicity for the sport of eventing. And they failed to effectively communicate with a significant, longtime sponsor of the sport, a d owner of a major competition venue, and reassure that stakeholder that his significant financial support of the sport was actually appreciated by the eventing community in the US.

We’ve all been arguing a lot about the word “plantation” and discussing EN’s role in this mess.

Maybe it would be more effective and constructive if the thread refocused for a bit on the management failure of certain folks in charge at the governing bodies. The two people I mentioned are paid, full time employees. They really should have more to say about this situation, in my opinion.

Why did this mess result in BOTH the loss of a major venue, AND horrible publicity for the sport? That seems a really suboptimal outcome, by any standard.

I wrote a detailed reply to pluvinel’s post, but the system ate it and I have no desire to recreate it. But pluvinel’s post is not an accurate timeline as I understand it, especially as it relates to the governing bodies being involved early in the process and potentially being approached by EN prior to EN approaching the organizers.

Pluvinel also has the origins of “Plantation Field” recorded inaccurately - the trees the Boy Scouts planted were Plantation Woods. The propery was also known as Logan’s Field. The event organizer choose the name “Plantation Field” twenty years ago when the event started. It is not the original historic name of the property.

I do find it interesting that the governing bodies have managed to avoid having a share in most of this discussion since they also proposed using a modified version of the event name.

[pluvinel]

@ghst13

I wrote a detailed reply to pluvinel’s post, but the system ate it and I have no desire to recreate it. But pluvinel’s post is not an accurate timeline as I understand it, especially as it relates to the governing bodies being involved early in the process and potentially being approached by EN prior to EN approaching the organizers.

Pluvinel also has the origins of “Plantation Field” recorded inaccurately - the trees the Boy Scouts planted were Plantation Woods. The propery was also known as Logan’s Field. The event organizer choose the name “Plantation Field” twenty years ago when the event started. It is not the original historic name of the property.

I do find it interesting that the governing bodies have managed to avoid having a share in most of this discussion since they also proposed using a modified version of the event name.

Ok…Field…Woods…whatev. I admit I conflated the names.

The point is the organizer and the landowner created a world class event. Then some outsiders come in to “tell” them what to call their event/land.

If I am a landowner or had worked my ass off over 20 years to pull together this competition and someone(s) decide I need to change…and they do it rather rudely…why would I not say “Don’t let the door hit you on the way off my land”…

I agree that the governing bodies seem to have been…and still are…all MIA on this.

[Equkelly]

@pluvinel

You are confusing 3 issues:
(1) A landowner’s right to call his/her property whatever he/she wants
(2) A landowner’s right to determine who has access to his/her property
(3) Society’s concerns about language, inclusion, diversity…etc and whether an outside entity can demand that a private landowner do its bidding.

The way this is being handled…and this post is an example…does not recognize the landowner’s right to do with his land per the terms of the lease agreement.

This thread is an example for why private landowners should be very reluctant to open their property to the public or to hold equestrian events on their land.

Which does nothing to improve the stated goal of improving diversity and increasing access to underserved populations.

Of course everyone recognizes the landowners rights to do whatever the hell they want. And if they want to continue to use a name that’s hurtful and not inclusive everyone else has the right to call them on it. And then they have the right to tell everyone else to “eff off” which is how we got here but that doesn’t make calling them out on it the wrong decision.

I get people are mad because this was a favorite venue but to be honest, that’s all it was. I think being inclusive, being anti racist, and being an alley are all more important than this venue. I understand it sucks and everyone wishes there was a different outcome but this country has a systemic racism problem and if people can’t speak out on the little things (and yes I freely admit this is comparatively a little thing) then HOW are we going to expect people to speak out on the big things? Being an ally should have more weight than a horse show does.

[trubandloki]

@Equkelly

I understand it sucks and everyone wishes there was a different outcome but this country has a systemic racism problem and if people can’t speak out on the little things (and yes I freely admit this is comparatively a little thing) then HOW are we going to expect people to speak out on the big things? Being an ally should have more weight than a horse show does.

I think this shows a problem the opposite of what you are portraying. A mountain was built out of a molehill here. A problem that could have been solved easily with a little bit of tact. This lack of tact has made things seem like those screaming inclusion are not really looking for inclusion but to see who can scream the loudest. Which makes people not listen at all.

Inclusion here would have involved knowing your audience (on both sides), finding a resolution that makes all happy so that all people could feel included. If this editor/writer wanted to make this event more inclusive they certainly failed horribly at their end goal and the goal they claim is the purpose of their writings (support eventing).

[pluvinel]

@Equkelly

Of course everyone recognizes the landowners rights to do whatever the hell they want. And if they want to continue to use a name that’s hurtful and not inclusive everyone else has the right to call them on it. And then they have the right to tell everyone else to “eff off” which is how we got here but that doesn’t make calling them out on it the wrong decision.

I get people are mad because this was a favorite venue but to be honest, that’s all it was. I think being inclusive, being anti racist, and being an alley are all more important than this venue. I understand it sucks and everyone wishes there was a different outcome but this country has a systemic racism problem and if people can’t speak out on the little things (and yes I freely admit this is comparatively a little thing) then HOW are we going to expect people to speak out on the big things? Being an ally should have more weight than a horse show does.

So is the goal “to be right”…Or is the goal to improve diversity in eventing and provide access to under-served populations?

[Equkelly]

@pluvinel

So is the goal “to be right”…Or is the goal to provide access to under-served populations?

Neither, the goal is to stand up against racial injustice. It’s just clear that to some people, that’s not an important enough goal to you which is very sad.

[Djones]

@Equkelly

Ok so if we’re supposed to be trying to be inclusive why do we get to pick the most convenient definition to white people and tell POC they don’t get to hurt by it? And also if the word is so “meaningless” why do we have 65 pages arguing about how “meaningless” it is? Why can’t we all just collectively say “ ok you know what? I personally did not see how that word could be hurtful and I personally did not understand the offense, but if it makes even one person of color feel heard and included then it should change.”

In the last 65 pages I’ve addressed this ad nauseam. So so pluvinel, Va Horse Mom, et el.

I have plants to get in the ground, I hope you’ll read back through those posts.

[Equkelly]

@trubandloki

I think this shows a problem the opposite of what you are portraying. A mountain was built out of a molehill here. A problem that could have been solved easily with a little bit of tact. This lack of tact has made things seem like those screaming inclusion are not really looking for inclusion but to see who can scream the loudest. Which makes people not listen at all.

Inclusion here would have involved knowing your audience (on both sides), finding a resolution that makes all happy so that all people could feel included. If this editor/writer wanted to make this event more inclusive they certainly failed horribly at their end goal and the goal they claim is the purpose of their writings (support eventing).

Ok but inclusivity doesn’t just mean “including more” people of color in the sport, it also means listening to the people of color that are in this sport even if those people only make up the 1%.

[MorganSercu]

I get people are mad because this was a favorite venue but to be honest, that’s all it was.

“All”? Do you think landowners with large tracts of land are begging to spend millions to make a site suitable for eventing and the fun fun fun of the liabilities associated with it? If you can find and make it happen with a suitable name, there are many people who would carry you on their shoulders as a hero.

Not just a favorite venue, a multimillion dollar venue that benefited more than just the most accomplished riders in the sport. Now it is lost entirely. Unless it isn’t - I really hope at least the local 4H, Pony Club and local groups can use it but I think USEA and possibly USEF can kiss it goodbye for good.

[MorganSercu]

@Equkelly

Ok but inclusivity doesn’t just mean “including more” people of color in the sport, it also means listening to the people of color that are in this sport even if those people only make up the 1%.

Isn’t that why there is USEA and USEF? Shouldn’t they be asking their members their thoughts about this? They can send up double-blind surveys and contact active members to get their anonymous feedback.

[Equkelly]

@MorganSercu

“All”? Do you think landowners with large tracts of land are begging to spend millions to make a site suitable for eventing and the fun fun fun of the liabilities associated with it? If you can find and make it happen with a suitable name, there are many people who would carry you on their shoulders as a hero.
.

In the context of black men and women dying due to systemic racism, no I’m sorry a horse show really isn’t that important.

[Djones]

@Equkelly

In the context of black men and women dying due to systemic racism, no I’m sorry a horse show really isn’t that important.

Damn the local economy. Damn the fuel and hotel taxes. Damn the silent auction. Damn the pros trying to make their mortgage. Damn it all to hell.

“Ok”

[ladyj79]

@Equkelly

Neither, the goal is to stand up against racial injustice. It’s just clear that to some people, that’s not an important enough goal to you which is very sad.

But this had absolutely zero things to do with racial injustice.

Nothing.

So the goal --a noble one-- of standing against racial injustice was not served by this…whatever this was.

[MorganSercu]

@Equkelly

In the context of black men and women dying due to systemic racism, no I’m sorry a horse show really isn’t that important.

Which is an important issue but how did losing this privately-owned venue advance the cause of racial justice? And the history behind the name has been in the programs at PFEE since at least 2009. Possibly earlier but I didn’t find anything prior to 2009.

Changing the name of a government building, or pulling down statues erected to traitors to our country (Confederates) or slave-owners that are erected on public lands - I am all for it. This accomplished nothing worthwhile. The name is the same. The venue is lost. USEA and USEF utterly failed to ameliorate the situation.