@FrittSkritt
Are you saying that the LO did so or the EO? I can see BOYCOTTING the event but not demanding a name change that very year. If EN was truly offended at the venue name then they should also have been equally offended by the people who competed there. Would that have included staff members?
Not that it matters because the landowner pulled the lease.
@pluvinel Yes, there was the hassle factor on top of everything else for the past 20 years.
"While there is work and expense involved, it is not the same as for product/brand changes. Not understanding those differences isnât helpful to the discussion.
Oh, and Marigold has years of experience so letâs please not discount her valuable contribution to the discussion. She has vastly more than a nodding acquaintance with the issues involved. Why her expertise is not given the same weight as others who weighed in on the subject is baffling. If itâs simply b/c she is not supporting the majority view here, thatâs not a good reason."
Ok - thank you for the explanation. I thought of them as one & the same. Nevertheless, the LO didnât want to do it. Whether he was affronted or had had one too many asks/tells by outsiders doesnât really matter. He had had enough.
What I donât understand is why when someone has stated they have had enough, people are suddenly stating that it wasnât a good enough reason NOT to do what THEY WANTED HIM TO DO. If the customer is always right but the business no longer wants their business, they can shut it all down. Which is what happened here, apparently. That doing x and only spending additional funds on y wouldnât be that much of a stretch, etc. They are not the party in question and are not weighing the 20 years of freight on top of it all.
It is an interesting discussion though but not likely to change Mr. Walkerâs mind about USEA and USEF. Like I said, if THEY had changed their by-laws (?) to state that events would be identified by their locality name, then everyone would have had to do the same. Maybe Walker would have continued the lease. We will never know.
I am not acquainted with Marigold or her experience. I am acquainted with Atl_rider and several others though. You say she has plenty of experience & knowledge on the topic, so that is good enough for me because I trust you.
I only know what she shared here in this thread, that this is her profession for many years and sheâs been involved in multiple re-branding/name changes even linking to some case studies. I believe way back when Atl rider posted I recall thinking it sounded like that poster was talking about a big product/service re-naming/re-branding and those are a hell of undertaking with some brands not able to survive the change. But with events/venues itâs a pretty normal occurrence esp. with the rise of naming rights for sponsorship. Thereâs a hotel in Hong Kong and one on Oâahu where you can tell how long someoneâs been in the area by what they call it as its name has changed with each new M&A transaction! Same with the bike race. If you called it the Cores States you were an old-timer; First Union - you were a newcomer. Same race/same place/same time/new name - over and over again for the entire run of the international event. Itâs really pretty normal these days for events and venues to change names frequently.
@FitzE The history I have read about in this thread is not so much the land owner being upset with the event, but the event causing problems for the landowner because of neighbors complaining about traffic and other problems the event cause.
I look at it this way - The landowner has been fielding complaints from people that the event is an issue and dealing with to defend the event. Now the eventers (EN) are turning on him and he is not going to deal with outsiders complaining and the people he has been defending all these years too.
I will say, that a bunch of the posts in this thread do make me wonder why any landowner is generous and lets such thankless people use their land.
FitzE - My point is that it doesnât matter. The LO had had enough. My bet is that referring to it as P* Field was insulting as p* is thought of a slang term for a portion of a womanâs anatomy. Plus the number and tone of emails (plural) from Leslie Wylie that were referred to by another board member.
Also, it was mentioned that the people who live on the road used by the eventers to get to and from the competition complained regularly and a lot of time and effort went into keeping them less unhappy so they wouldnât use their clout to get the event shut down. That the road wasnât designed for so much traffic, etc. Not unlike people who find their driveways blocked by a huge influx of out-of-town church users once a week. Itâs a real PITA for the residents. Or if they had complained enough then the permits to host the events could have gotten pulled.
If USEA and USEF had changed their by-laws to state that venue names would be dropped and instead competitions would be referred to by the town where they take place then everyone would have grumbled but carried on.
USEAâs loss may be the local food bankâs gain. Or maybe Mr. Walker will be willing to lease it out to the 4H club. Or to a private group to school their horses, dogs, etc. Otherwise, more hay may be available for purchase next year than has been for the past 20 or so.
I donât look at Facebook very much, so I have no clue what anyone posts there.
As far as posting âhate speechâ⊠The US is still a nation of laws, not under mob rule. If the SCOTUS has said that offensive speech is protected, then, although I may not agree with the content of the speech, I agree with the personâs right to say it. Just as it is your right not to associate with anyone you donât care to.
OhâŠand BTWâŠ
In the eyes of United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I donât qualify to check the box for âwhiteâ when filling out the EEOCâs Race & Ethnic Identification Category.
As a matter of fact, in all those seminars that @Virginia Horse Mom talked about organizing in the corporate world, it was me who was involuntarily drafted to participate in meetings which were euphemistically called âMulticultural Workshopsâ so that I could share my âlife experiencesâ with people just like you. ⊠and then had to do it multiple times since we were the minority population. It got real old.
So, thank you for putting me on ignore
PSA: This case has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment whatsoever. To have a 1A case you need what is called a âState actor.â I.e., if there is not involvement by the State on some level, the 1st Amendment does not apply. You only have a right of free speech as against the State, not against private people or companies.
Example: a private employer can fire you for all kinds of speech - literally anything they want. If they can write it up and tell you not to say/do it and you say/do it, youâre done. IRL example: Amy Cooper (aka, Central Park dog walker). The State of NY or the federal govât could not sanction her for what she did (unless it rose to the level of making a false police report), but her employer canned her a$$ within hours of that performance. Protected speech from govât sanction is not necessarily protected from private sanction. Say crap that makes your company look bad and youâre out!
There is no State actor in this current situation. Thus the 1st Amendment does not apply. And, in fact, Facebook as a private company can sanction such speech. They can decide we arenât allowed to show pictures of horses b/c Mark Z. is allergic to them. They can come up with any rule they want. They didnât take down Glaccumâs post but they could have if they wanted with zero 1A implications. And any private person can object (like any poster here who saw what he posted and found it repugnant) to his posts and chose to (i) draw conclusions about his character and (ii) refuse to do business with him, based on those posts - again, all without ever coming even close to a 1A issue.
TL;DR: no State involvement (think govât involvement for easy reference) = NO 1A ISSUE ARISES
Nothing involved in this discussion or situation could possibly have any LESS to do with the 1st Amendment. Anyone who does not understand this fundamental element of their 1st Amendment right to free speech is, perhaps, the one who missed a crucial civics class.
First of all I cannot believe this discussion has gone on for 88 pages.
Secondly of all - an issue Iâve already brought to life - it is freakishly hard to take the original EN demand serious unless they boycott all European Events next to a big house/castle full stop. Something I am pretty sure these ladies would never do.
Third of all the above post (brilliant work by the way) which I landed on by accident when randomly heading for a page in this mega thread made me search for the article in New York Times which leads me to the following question. WTF is this?
According to data from the United States Equestrian Federation, the organization that governs American horse sports, almost 90 percent of its 185,000 members identify as white.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/sâŠme-change.html
Are they seriously asking for this information when people become members? ðƞ˱ðƞ˱ðƞ˱
I thought you were putting me on IgnoreâŠsheeshâŠ
100% agreed. Thatâs about the stupidest âfixâ I could possibly imagine.
I think it was Mr. Glaccum who brought up 1A. Somehow that got tossed into the bonfire.
Such a mess and a waste. Well, Mr. Walker wins. He regains 100% ownership and control of his land and eventually his privacy too.
All of the above is trueâŠand totally irrelevant.
The point is that anyone can post offensive speechâŠas long as it is allowed in whatever internet platform they are usingâŠand that speech is protected by law.
And all of you who disagree with what that person says are free to ignore/shun the person whose postings you disagree with.
So perhaps you can ignore me.
That makes more sense. I kept seeing things references to ungrateful land users and their increasing demands over 20 years and then separate discussion of neighbor issues, so I saw them as two different things. If the users of the land have been plaguing the man for 20 years and have not been sufficiently grateful, then he made the right choice. But, again, to have a final straw (name change) you need a hold load of straw up on the camel first. Letâs at least share the blame among EN and all those others straws up there.
Instead I would like to demand that you allow me to prance my luxury pet around your yard. And maintain facilities that appeal to me.
But in silence, peasant!!!
:lol::lol::lol:
First of all I cannot believe this discussion has gone on for 88 pages.
Secondly of all - an issue Iâve already brought to life - it is freakishly hard to take the original EN demand of a name change serious unless they boycott all European Events next to a big house/castle full stop.
Third of all a post I landed on by accident when randomly heading for a page in this mega thread made me search for the article in New York Times which leads me to the following question. WTF is this?
According to data from the United States Equestrian Federation, the organization that governs American horse sports, almost 90 percent of its 185,000 members identify as white.
Are they seriously asking for this information when people become members? ðƞ˱ðƞ˱ðƞ˱
a: if the facts of the 1st Amendment are irrelevant, why did you bring it up?
b: âThe point is that anyone can post offensive speechâŠas long as it is allowed in whatever internet platform they are usingâŠand that speech is protected by law.â This is not true. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal protection for speech.
Iâll tell you who my Con Law professor was and you tell me yours and weâll take it to the two of them. Mine loves to address this exact issue.
Again NO STATE ACTOR = NO 1A ISSUE.
Full stop.
See page 5. They can ask but that doesnât mean anyone has to answer.
https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/ehrgYEuZEXg/diversity-equity-inclusion-action
1A was brought up by either Mr. Glaccum or Mr. Walker somewhere in the midst of all of this. Clearly, they were angry when they wrote it. Maybe even infuriated.
People who bring up the 1st Amendment with little understanding of it make such fools of themselves. Sigh.
I think your second point in this post is the best summary of all of this situation: no need to cry for the LO, he comes out just fine: no noisy event on his property, no unhappy neighbors, no hassles, no skin off his nose. As pointed out before, many of the local events no longer run, so this is not outside the life cycle of a typical event of this size in this area. Itâs a shame it ended the way it did, but the LO loses nothing and probably gains a lot of peace of mind and good will with the neighbors. He made the right choice for him and I wish him well with his land.
Do they ask for race on joining? I donât know. If they do it isnât for any nefarious reason, I hope, but a cultural one. The US is obsessed with measuring race, nearly every membership survey, government form, or other survey has a box to tick for what race you are. You donât have to tick the box, but there it isâŠ
It was such a surprise when I was living in Canada and the UK and the forms didnât have that box!
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
