Mount Evans Renaming Informal Poll

[dubsho3000]

We should not put people up on pedestals, literal or figurative, if they offend a significant portion of the population.

Your proposed standard is that we should rename everything that "offends a significant portion of the population." Based on the results of the poll in this thread there is overwhelming support to not change the name. So if these people would be offended by the change then, by our own standard, we should not change it, right?

Hmm, I'm not sure I proposed that to be a standard used by the naming boards. We'd have to get lawyers involved and word-smith it a bit, probably in a series of zoom meetings. For instance we probably need words like "genuinely held belief" in there. I was just posting on a forum with my ideas, in a casual way. I think Justiner performed valiantly in responding to your questions so I'll leave this there. Thanks Justiner! You are right that my sentence above is not an adequate standard for determining what names should be changed.

[CheapCigarMan]

I think the waste of time and money arguments are pretty weak. We waste time and money on things are are actually actively harmful, like the military, or health insurance companies. renaming stuff that's been named for genocide enablers is not a revolutionary solution to all of our problems, but it is a small, easy step that has public support. In what world is replacing a few signs a significant expense for the government? If you're mad about money and time being "wasted" on this, there are about a million things you should be more upset about.

Totally agree with this. I do think it is reasonable and prudent for citizens to be concerned about how the gov't spends money, and I often find that people on this forum are more informed than I am. That's why I keep pushing to get some info on the cost. I just find it very hard to believe that replacing signs and maps is a significant cost to the state. I was thinking about this and I feel like the employees to replace any signs would already be on staff (i.e. baked into the budget) and we probably already have the sign materials and equipment to make the signs. Seems like something the gov't does all the time. Is that the overwhelming cost so many are worried about? Or is there something else specific to cost that I'm not considering?

This work would be farmed out. I know a sign company that does a lot of this work for Counties and the State.

It’s amazing to me how people think the government has this unending supply of cash and resources. With seemingly no understanding of where these dollars come from, the number of programs we expect the government to manage, and if that budget is in surplus or in a deficit.

[XterraRob]

How much and how do you know?

Because that's how governments work.

[mtnkub]

So you don't know the sum, but you do know how it came to be? Does that sound a tiny bit prejudgemental?

[Bombay2Boulder]

These threads are always a great decider for me on who to add to my ignore list, thought I had most of them covered, but guess not.

[dubsho3000]

It’s amazing to me how people think the government has this unending supply of cash and resources. With seemingly no understanding of where these dollars come from, the number of programs we expect the government to manage, and if that budget is in surplus or in a deficit.

How many people think that and how do you know??? Haha - just kidding.

[jmanner]

Seems like the Arapaho and Northern Cheyenne made their opinions known. Perhaps we should consider that. Or we can just say, ‘hey we’ve named it this for a few years now and since we’re like white and rich and s**t, we get to decide. Change is scary so let’s just stick with the pro- gencoide guy. ‘

[EigenDylan]

This work would be farmed out. I know a sign company that does a lot of this work for Counties and the State.

It’s amazing to me how people think the government has this unending supply of cash and resources. With seemingly no understanding of where these dollars come from, the number of programs we expect the government to manage, and if that budget is in surplus or in a deficit.

One counterintuitive thing: government deficits grow the economy, surpluses shrink it. Think about it. When the govt spends money, it is effectively an investment in its people. Certain types of spending give huge returns bc they improve society and grow the economy (education, scientific research), which increases tax revenue. Almost any spending will be beneficial (perhaps creating a few jobs at a sign company). If the government is running a surplus, that means they are taking more in taxes than they are investing back into the economy, which isn't beneficial at all. Deficit spending is fine as long as the investment will return more than is put in, which is a very safe bet in a nation like the us. Govt surplus is basically money sitting around doing nothing, which is why it should be avoided. Deficit spending is a great way to influence the market to do something actually socially beneficial, which is why every single nation on the planet does it.

[dubsho3000]

Seems like the Arapaho and Northern Cheyenne made their opinions known. Perhaps we should consider that. Or we can just say, ‘hey we’ve named it this for a few years now and since we’re like white and rich and s**t, we get to decide. Change is scary so let’s just stick with the pro- gencoide guy. ‘

Hahaha - yep, change is hard!

I have to say, I really like the name Blue Sky Wilderness. I hope that follows if this name change is adopted.

[justiner]

Somewhat awkwardly, Wilderness Areas cannot be renamed by the USGS. May even take an act of Congress (similar to establishing a Wilderness Area). Example,

https://www.murray.senate.gov/the-olymp ... dan-evans/

[Flips]

Seems like the Arapaho and Northern Cheyenne made their opinions known. Perhaps we should consider that. Or we can just say, ‘hey we’ve named it this for a few years now and since we’re like white and rich and s**t, we get to decide. Change is scary so let’s just stick with the pro- gencoide guy. ‘

Hahaha - yep, change is hard!

I have to say, I really like the name Blue Sky Wilderness. I hope that follows if this name change is adopted.

Blue Sky Wilderness has a good sound and emphasis to it. Likewise, I’ve been thinking lately if Evans is renamed to Blue Sky, Mount Blue Sky sounds awkward to say. To me, Blue Sky Mountain or Blue Sky Peak is easier to roll off the tongue and puts more emphasis on Blue Sky. Blue Sky becomes more of the theme and something to be proud of. Anyone else see this or am I just alone because perhaps I can’t speak well? Any historical reason why Mount was proposed?

[HikerGuy]

Any historical reason why Mount was proposed?

Here's a nerdy explanation. Unfortunately, many of the links are broken.