Posted on 09/13/2021 3:56:48 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The long-contested name of a popular Northern California state park steeped in a violent history may soon change for good.
Located near the craggy seaside cliffs of Trinidad, Calif., Patrick’s Point State Park is known for its coastal scenery, winding trails shrouded in spruce trees, the rocky tide pools that inspired a Nickelodeon cartoon and sandy shores dotted with agate. But a recent press release shared by California State Parks describes how the name of this serene oasis in Humboldt County traces back to Irish homesteader Patrick Beegan who allegedly claimed the land in the mid-1800s and was accused of murdering numerous Native Americans who originally lived there.
Now, officials are proposing to change the name of the 640-acre park to that of the tribe’s village, calling it Sue-meg State Park following a formal request from the Yurok tribe as part of the “Reexamining our Past initiative,” a larger ongoing effort that aims to evaluate and rectify the names of existing parks, monuments and transportation systems with discriminatory roots across the state.
“In 1850, when gold was found in the interior of California, the Yurok people suffered from violence, exploitation, dispossession, and the attempted destruction of Yurok communities by an influx of Euro-American settlers and deleterious federal and state policies,” reads the press release. “The Yurok people resisted, survived, and carried on cultural and linguistic traditions. The Yurok people still live in relationship with their ancestral lands.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Yeah, when is Yale University going to change its name?
All it takes is an accusation. Liberal “justice” at its best.
Ping
Or New York
Or Berkley
It's like that disastrous San Francisco school board thing. California leftists and their culture war.
Next up comes the Casino.
I can’t wait till the woketards realize that half the cities in California are named after Christian saints.
The left’s job is to defecate on everything.
Yes, that is obviously racist. I'm pretty cynical but these days I am never cynical enough to keep up.
Interesting how the development of societies can be accepted for what they were yet called upon to be a marker for some type of negative lifestyle down the road. The Yurok society is one of those.
When Yurok daughters got married, Yurok families would receive a payment from her husband. For the most part, girls were highly valued in the family. But they were expensively bought. The amount of money paid by a man determined the social status of the couple. A wealthy man, who could afford to pay a large sum, increased the couple and their children’s rank within the community. When married, both spouses held onto their personal properties but the bride lived with the groom’s family and took his last name. Men who were unable to pay the full sum of money could pay half the cost for the bride. In doing so, the couple was considered “half-married.” Half-married couples lived with the bride’s family and the groom would then become a slave for them.
Furthermore, their children would take on the mother’s last name. In cases of divorce, either spouse could initiate their split. The most frequent reason for divorce was if the wife was infertile. If the woman wanted a divorce and to take the children with her, her family had to refund the husband for his initial payment. So women were sold and husbands who couldn’t make the payment were set into slavery. Sound familiar?
And the incoming fur trappers, and gold miners wee not exactly the only one’s taking lives. The Klamath River Massacres in 1855 began from incidents between local settlers and local Indians and a rumor of an Indian uprising against the miners along the Klamath River by the Yurok and Karok Native American tribes. A rumor?
Local miners wanted the Indians armed with guns and ammunition disarmed, anyone trading them to the Indians whipped and expelled from the County and any Indian found with firearms after that time was to be killed. Some of the Indians, mainly a group called the “Red Caps”, refused to disarm, and hostilities began between them and the miners. So the tribe was just as much into the killing of settlers as was the opposite. There’s always two sides to history.
Wy69
“Reexamining our Past initiative.”
If at first you don’t succeed, you try, try again until you succeed or ruin the whole thing...and only then give up trying to fix something that wasn’t broke to begin with. Liberal logic.
wy69
These people ARE F’n NUTS!!!!!
The Red Sox has a great scout, why arranged tryouts for any number of great black players, and the Red Sox nixed them.
In 1945, the Red Sox tried out Jackie Robinson, who went on to become a six time All Star and MVP, and two other quality black players. Red Sox said no, and he played a decade for the Dodgers.
The Red Sox had a chance to sign Willie Mays in 1950, a year before he was a Rookie of the year for the New York Giants. He was a two time NL MVP, and a 24-time (not a typo) All Star.
The Red Sox were the last team to have a black player in 1959.
I am no baseball expert, but I am guessing they would have been a much better team if they had exceptional players like Jackie Robinson and Willie Mays.
And the other half are Spanish and Indian names.
If the libs weren’t such incredible hypocrites, they’d find a lot of weird things in Indian tribes and culture that don’t comport well with the 21st century WOKE ethos. The fact that they Yuroks sold their women like chattel should be enough to disqualify the name change.
Don’t mention the angels...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.