This is the will of the owner. If you don’t like it go somewhere else. Why is everything about race? When the White Sox were called the Black socks does anyone know the real reason? I do. It was because Cominsky was so cheap he wouldn’t pay to wash the socks! Should we remove the word black and white from the dictionary? People need to get over themselves. I, myself, are Jewish and I do not hold the modern day Germans responsible for what happened before. Learn from it and move on. Why are these people born in the USA, of ALL race, simply not Americans?
The owner has the right to determine what they name there farms. It is legal. IS it worth throwing away such support? Is EN and the USEA going to financially support another event that suits their agenda? Off my soap box now
You are absolutely right. Both opinions are valid, and people are of course entitled to whatever genuine reactions/emotions they may have. Group A seems to be comfortable with this, Group B does not. All fair.
But if we approach this with the goal of “let’s make as many people feel welcome in eventing as possible”, there is an opportunity for gain here. Group B is currently feeling unwelcome due to this name. If we change the name to “Unionville Horse Trials”, both groups will feel welcome. Why would we not do this? Who does it hurt to change a name? We can clearly see who it would help.
Huh. I’m slightly uncomfortable admitting I’ve never considered this. Maybe it doesn’t bother anyone…but maybe it does. I can just as easily use other language to get the same point across (ex. “unambiguous”), so moving forward I will. Thank you.
We’ve already discussed how word use evolves. You use the word “woke” as an insult to overly sensitive people. Did you know its meaning is actually far different among people who are against racism?
“Woke (/ˈwoÊŠk/), as a political term originating in the United States, refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice.[SUP][1][/SUP]It derives from the African-American Vernacular English expression “stay woke”, whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues.”
When you take a word with powerful meaning and use it to turn the idea of fighting racial injustice into something negative, it makes you look like you support racism.
Though I agree with you generally, it’s not ours to name.
As a lifelong resident of the area take my thoughts for what they are worth which probably isn’t much. In this area we are proud of our roots as a Union State with its Quaker traditions and plentiful stops on the Underground Railroad. So, the knee jerk reaction is going to be one of shock and hurt. For many of us the name doesn’t conjure a Southern Plantation at all. Admittedly I’m a speaking from a place of white privilege but I would venture a guess that most people on this thread are as well.
Here is what I think was lost in EN’s ham fisted handling of the situation. There was an opportunity lost here. An opportunity to highlight the rich history of the area. Highlight the Quakers and their fight against slavery. EN could have done a story on just how the property got its name, they could have pointed out that while that name is now problematic the property has no history of slavery. They could have done some reporting on the good the family has done. Perhaps a more in-depth story on Work to Ride and all that they do.
Words have meaning. Often they have multiple meanings. When one definition is hurtful to great swaths of the population it is time for a change but sometimes it is better to educate first. There was no reason to come at the owner and organizer just a few months before this year’s competition and demand the change. It would have been better to work quietly behind the scenes and hope for rebranding for next year. People are angry and nobody likes to be accused of being a racist, even if it is only implied. Now was not the time. Nothing was going to happen this year. It was too late, preparations were already well under way there was no way an even that large could be rebranded. For EN this may have been well intended but the consequences are catastrophic. This property is beloved in the local community and everyone loves the unrecognized events and their jumper shows as well. Just a little tact and patience, looking at the long game, could have saved all that. I think we could have had our cake and eaten it too.
Please explain how you got to the conclusion that they were trying to force a boycott of the show or the sponsors? They tried to start a discussion among the organizers and governing body in June and when it was clear that no change was going to materialize they stated that they would prefer to call the show Unionville in their coverage- the exact same way the FEI refers to shows by their place name. The event informed them that they were not welcome on the grounds or to cover the show in any way and proceeded to throw their lollipops on the ground and stomp away. I frankly don’t blame EN for explaining why they would not be covering the show, it would be a glaringly obvious omission from an organization that has been one of PF’s top fans and even went so far as to be a sponsor in previous years.
I think that it’ll be interesting to see what other information comes out in the next few days and weeks, especially since the property lease was pulled days before anything was made public.
Actually EN was asked not to attend, they didn’t boycott. The owners rejected their request to cover the event but use a different name and owners then kicked them out of the event.
Also why do the inner city youth have to suffer? They have nothing to do with this. Why won’t the farm still support this? Pretty lame to cancel that over something unrelated and would say a lot about the owner.
I’m guessing the lessee(s) and the landowner had a statement prepared in case EN decided to “go public” with the fight on social media. It was probably the straw that broke the camel’s back.
I think that lcw presents a very thoughtful, tempered, realistic approach in this post.
A lot of things are about race because the POC are still facing oppression, I’m not sure about Germany but perhaps the Jews feel like enough has been done in Germany, and don’t feel like they face constant oppression and fear.
they weren’t asking to change the name of the farm, just the EVENT. What is the big deal, really. Seems like a pretty small gesture to welcome a community.
The way I read the article(s), the event was a fund raiser for an organization that provides riding opportunities for inner city youth. No fund raiser typically means no program. So unless the program can find another sponsor …
Yes, because “asking nicely” has always worked out SO WELL for POC, right? 🙄🙄
There are a lot of assumptions going around about “how it was approached” that none of us can really know. I am coming to this having read first the letter from Glaccum and then read the article from Eventing Nation.
To my eyes, the Glaccum letter is reactionary and petulant. To my eyes, the Eventing Nation article is measured, careful, and sensitive.
Now, that doesn’t mean/prove that the Eventing Nation staff weren’t jerks. Totally possible. I don’t think we get anywhere by walking into a situation and tearing people’s hearts out. My approach is to start by assuming everyone means well, that an unfortunate situation is unintentional, and to negotiate a solution as kindly and informatively as possible. I hope, but don’t know, that this is how it started.
The Eventing Nation article starts by praising the wonderful venue. In the next paragraph they thank and laud the people, say it’s clear to them there’s no mal intent in the name, and mention their association with Work to Ride. And only then do they start to explain how the word ‘plantation’ has become a problem for them, in particular that they don’t want it in headlines on their articles. Then they repeat that there isn’t a history of slavery at this site. Then they say that it’s up to the organizers if they change the name.
It’s not entirely clear to me the timeline but from the way this is written it seems unlikely to me that the first engagement was some official communication with USEF/USEA demanding they force a name change. Certainly the most appropriate way to start is always a direct conversation. Note:
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.
and
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.
I mentioned my measured style for dealing with issues like this (and it’s not my first rodeo). Sometimes it works: the person does not mean to do harm, is able to absorb the information, possibly with some distress, but is willing and able to change whatever behavior was inappropriate and hurtful. Because they don’t want to cause pain, after all. But sometimes the mere suggestion that their actions might be less than 100% perfect, no matter how sensitively and carefully broached, is so challenging to that the response is to flounce off in a huff and claim no one worth knowing would be offended. Glaccum’s response is a textbook example of the latter.
It’s never nice when these conversations don’t go well. But that’s not an excuse to say they should never be had. Glaccum and his landowner are adults and they have made a choice of where to stand.
I heartily agree. The way this went down was either so rushed or so disrespectfully handled that the landowners felt harassed and irritated and its done.
I know how hard I bow and scrape to host a flipping schooling show at a private property…know what I mean? You cannot offend the owners and come to a happy conclusion.
The problem with your argument is that in this case there were no people of color involved, just a bunch of elitist white people.
lcw579, did you read the Eventing Nation article? It does all those things. Highlights the rich history of the area, the source of the name, and the public service of the family.
I did read it. My point was that they could have done all that during their daily coverage of the event this year rather than after the fact when the damage was already done. Then they, along with the governing bodies, could have worked towards agreeing on a name change going forward.
Except that they couldn’t, because when they said they’d be referring to the event as Unionville that Glaccum told them they weren’t welcome on the grounds.
They have been working on this since June, doesn’t sound rushed to me. Obviously, there have been of conversations beforehand.
It seems the landowner felt harassed because they didn’t like the request. Hardly harassment.
The owners are offended? By what? Asking to change THE EVENT name (not the farm remember) And people are supposed to care? When people call anyone who is offended by the word “Plantation” snowflakes? The irony is so thick right now.
Connotations do change over time, for which reason there is no point trotting out the history behind a name. Here the UK we had a similar controversy a few weeks ago when the BBC, which has become overtly woke, demanded Rule Britannia be dropped from the Last Night of the Proms. The backlash proved a distraction from Covid and Brexit for a week or so and it dominated the news. For those who dont know the Proms, its an annual summer occasion when millions of Brits who have paid no attention to the previous six weeks of classical Proms concerts tune into the last night, wave Union Jacks and sing words such as “Britons never ever ever shall be slaves.” Dozens of academics weighed in to inform us that the verse was written 300 years ago and was inspired by the Roman occupation of Britain, which lasted 400 years from about 40 AD. But they are wasting their breath because while to many its just a harmless night of national pride, the words are now genuinely offensive to the BAME community here (Black, Asian and Minority Etnic.) In the middle of all this, the BBC got a new director general, and he reinstated Rule Britannia on his first day in the job.
From what I have read, EN’s poor handling of this whole issue partly relates to their inexperience. The equestrian media now comprises two kinds of operation. One is the online offer of titles with a long print heritage like COTH and in the UK, Horse & Hound, who have accumulated decades of experience and will still have some properly newspaper trained folks on the staff. Michael Clayton, a former long time editor of H&H, had been a BBC war correspondent in Vietnam and a national newspaper editor before he opted to spend later life in equestrianism. That is the category of publication which will still produce well researched investigative pieces. I also believe that Kenneth Braddick who runs Dressage-News.com was a Washington and/or war correspondent for Reuters or a similar agency for most of his career - you can see that in his very methodical way of writing. The other category of online publication is the websites begun by sport enthusiasts who developed writing skills as they went along. I suspect EN falls into that category. Most of the time they get away with it in straightforward reporting of events and feel good rider profiles etc etc, but notably they will usually dodge exposes that need a lot of research and corroboration of facts because that kind of serious journalistm is not in the amateur’s skill set. To me, this is partly where EN’s approach to PF was flawed. There are more subtle ways of cajoling someone into changing something you don’t like. A cannier old journalist would have found someone else to raise the issue, reported what the third party said and offered the subject of criticism the right of reply in the same article, which latter process is fundamental to all reporting. They’d have built up the case for changing the name brick by brick in a series of articles. If its true the EN went straight to USEA and by-passed PF, I am not surprised it has backfired in such a big way.
