New Post
Search
HelpRe: Names that are just...wrong.
in reply to a message by LiaMaria
I'll start us out. I really dislike hearing Lennon because while on paper it looks nice, verbally it sounds like Lenin.
I really dislike culturally appropriated names like Cheyenne, Gypsy, and Cohen. I cringe when I hear it because people either 1) didn't research a name enough to know that or 2) don't care.
I really dislike culturally appropriated names like Cheyenne, Gypsy, and Cohen. I cringe when I hear it because people either 1) didn't research a name enough to know that or 2) don't care.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I can kind of understand Cheyenne because it's fairly common at this point and ends in a very common sound for English female names. I'm not saying it's not somewhat ignorant to use it if you have no background, but I really don't expect most people research names before using them, especially if they've come across it IRL once before.
1
I've heard Lenin used as a name in a number of Latin American countries. It's one of those names given by parents who admire certain historical or political figures. For example, I know a number of guys named Washington (after George Washington) and I know two Edisons (after Thomas Edison).
This message was edited 12/8/2016, 4:32 AM
1
Which historical figures parents decide to honor tells a lot about them. As others have mentioned, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Osama Bin Laden are all historical figures, but they have been implicated with genocide and/or mass human rights abuses. While it may be true that most political figures can be viewed as controversial by somebody, not all public figures are tarred with the same brush or are guilty of the same things. Comparing George Washington to Vladimir Lenin is not going to fly with most people.
1
At least originally, Lenin was used by parents with communist leanings. Even today, many self-identified communists view Lenin in a positive light. (I'm not defending Lenin; I'm just stating parents' motives for using it.) Over here, names like Lenin and Edison tend to be more common among the working class (though they do see usage by other social classes as well). I doubt most of the people are even aware of the less-appealing traits of their sons' namesakes.
Even a lot of well-liked historical figures aren't always viewed positively by everyone. For example, not all Indians see Mahatma Gandhi as a hero. He's hated by a lot of Dalits who see him as an elitist.
I don't want to turn this into a political argument.
Even a lot of well-liked historical figures aren't always viewed positively by everyone. For example, not all Indians see Mahatma Gandhi as a hero. He's hated by a lot of Dalits who see him as an elitist.
I don't want to turn this into a political argument.
This message was edited 12/8/2016, 3:18 PM
1
There isn't really sufficient evidence proving that Thomas Edison ever killed an elephant. A circus elephant named Topsy was electrocuted at Luna Park after she killed someone, but Edison doesn't really seem to have had anything to do with it with the electrocution. At the time of Topsy's death, Edison was no longer involved in the electric lighting business. The Brooklyn company that still bore his name mentioned in newspaper reports was a privately owned power company no longer associated with his earlier Edison Illuminating Company. Edison was not present at Luna Park nor does he seem to have harbored any notable ill intent toward elephants.
While Edison was by no means perfect, I can see why people could admire his contributions to electric light, power utilities, sound recording, motion pictures, mass communications, etc... He even created a battery for an electric car. Without his long-lasting practical light bulb, the world just wouldn't be the same.
While Edison was by no means perfect, I can see why people could admire his contributions to electric light, power utilities, sound recording, motion pictures, mass communications, etc... He even created a battery for an electric car. Without his long-lasting practical light bulb, the world just wouldn't be the same.
1
The electrocution was carried out by electricians of the Edison Company and in the past he had condoned such things.
1
The elephant was doomed to die anyway because she had killed a person. There were other incidents that gave her a reputation as a "bad" elephant. So yes, you can argue that you can't really blame the animal because she was forced into circus life, but the fact is the mindset at the time was that an elephant who turned violent even under those circumstances had to die. Also the man who owned her had decided to get out of the amusement park business. Edison didn't decide she had to die. It was going to happen whether he was involved with it in any way or not. The man who owned her made the decision. And if it were electricians from a company that he was no longer associated with, how was he involved anyway? At first the plan was to hang her, but strangulation with ropes tied to a steam powered winch, poison, and electrocution were chosen instead as being more humane than hanging, because simple hanging did not guarantee death and if it did cause death, it would be a slower death. She was killed because she had killed a person, not because Edison wanted to see if electrocution would work, and she was killed by a method including electrocution because it was considered more humane, not because Edison wanted to see if electrocution would work.
The claims that it was a demonstration organized by Thomas Edison as part of the War of Currents are false. The War of Currents had occurred ten years before.
Your dislike of Thomas Edison is just kind of weird. Of course, you have the right to dislike whom you want to, but if you are going to cite reasons that you do, you should make sure they are factual.
The claims that it was a demonstration organized by Thomas Edison as part of the War of Currents are false. The War of Currents had occurred ten years before.
Your dislike of Thomas Edison is just kind of weird. Of course, you have the right to dislike whom you want to, but if you are going to cite reasons that you do, you should make sure they are factual.
This message was edited 12/9/2016, 8:38 AM
1
Okay, so let's say he wasn't even responsible for the elephant. I don't like his support of electrocution as a method of acceptable death in humans.
1