Rhode Island's dolts-in-residence (the legislature) are considering a bill that would ask voters to change the state's official name. Not many know Rhode Island has the longest state name of any other -- The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

However, some groups have taken exception to "Plantations", saying it evokes slavery and reminds tham of the Southern plantation system. They want the last three words removed from the title.

The problem is the South's plantation/slavery system did not exist in New England. In the case of RI, plantations referred to the colony that settled at the mouth of Narragansett Bay. It had no negative connotations until recently.

The question is, should the state name be changed because of a perceived but non-existent offense against a current minority?

No.

I see no reason to change the name.

King County, WA had a similar "problem." King County was named after
William Rufus deVane King, U. S. Representative from North Carolina, Senator from Alabama, and the 13th Vice-President of the United States. He died from tuberculosis after 45 days as Vice-President.

He was also a slaveholder. The thought of their county being named after a slaveholder was intolerable to the good people of King County, so they decided to rename it after the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. They renamed it ... King County.

quote:

The question is, should the state name be changed because of a perceived but non-existent offense against a current minority?

Yes.

Not only because it's a stupid name of a state (Rhode Island is enough!), but also because, I am sorry, but "plantation" does have the connotation of slavery. If it were only the former, I'd say forget about the political correctness. But who, except for Rhode Islanders (and a few nerds), know that name anyway? I'm for the dolts this time.

Plantations are places where things are planted and grown. Some used slave labour; some did not. The same could be said for many other businesses - are we going to change the names of everything that has some remote connection with slavery?

Of course not, though that is the way things are going lately. In Illinois we've had problems with our fighting Illini because of American Indians. As you know there are many others, including the dislike of the word "denigrate" and many many more.

However, if you read my post, there are two reasons. If Rhode Island itself denoted slavery, I'd say leave it. But that name, "The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" should be changed anyway. Or...maybe we should rename Illinois to "The State of the Illiniwek Tribes: Kaskaskia, the Cahokia, the Peoria, the Tamaroa, Moingwena, Michigamea, Albiui, Amonokoa, Chepoussa, Chinkoa, Coiracoentanon, Espeminkia, Maroa, Matchinkoa, Michibousa, Negawichi, and Tapouara." To me, it's just as silly as that and a no brainer.

But we all have our opinions, and obviously not everyone agrees with me. Just count me in as a Rhode Islander "dolt."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

As a citizen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I'd say there is nothing wrong with having a long name.
I have no strong feelings one way or the other on whether it should be changed but I do feel that it's a bad idea to give in to a perceived offence on such entirely specious historical grounds.

quote:

As you know there are many others, including the dislike of the word "denigrate" and many many more.

What's wrong with "denigrate"? It seems are rather niggardly complaint to me to criticise a word because it has some superficial resemblance to some other word that some people might prefer not to use.

I reckon Nigeria and the other lands of the Niger Delta might have something to say about that.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
As a citizen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I'd say there is nothing wrong with having a long name.

Like Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, Wales, for instance?

Don't forget that the Californians venerate their missions, all of which were built by indigenous slave labor.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

As you know there are many others, including the dislike of the word "denigrate" and many many more.

What's wrong with "denigrate"? It seems are rather niggardly complaint to me to criticise a word because it has some superficial resemblance to some other word that some people might prefer not to use.

denigrate is from Latin dēnigrāre "to blacken" from niger "black". So it's not a superficial resemblance. On the other hand, it is the etymological fallacy to claim that a word's origin or etymological connection to other words has some bearing on its present meaning.