Local birders grapple with Audubon’s controversial history
Local birders are taking their eyes off the sky to look toward the past as they grapple with the controversial namesake of the Audubon Society: slaveholder and slave trader John James Audubon.
Though Audubon’s history has not been a secret, it was largely unknown to Connecticut members of the society that bears his name, prompting local leaders to issue a statement this past week addressing the issue.
In a letter penned by The Connecticut Audubon Society Executive Director Patrick Comins on Aug. 27, the society calls its namesake’s memory a “mixed legacy” — on one hand, Audubon, who lived from 1785 to 1851, was a celebrated ornithologist and artist. On the other, Comins wrote, he was a man who bought, sold and owned enslaved Black people and boasted about his involvement in the capture and return of escaped slaves.
“John James Audubon was a seminal figure in the birding world and made enormous contributions to it,” Comins said. “At the same time he had beliefs and performed actions in his personal life that can only be described as deplorable then and now.”
Comins wrote to members and donors that, in light of the Black Lives Matter movement nationwide, the society was taking a harder look at the life of the man whose name it bears.
Of Audubon’s ties to slavery, Comins said, “I believe that we must confront it by examining our own organization’s responsibilities in today’s world as an institution dedicated to the inclusion of all members of society and by addressing our own shortcomings.”
Chapters of the Audubon Society across the country have engaged in discussions about how to navigate Audubon’s controversial past. “At the heart of these discussions is the issue of what his legacy means at a time when our diversity is recognized as a great strength, and inclusivity is viewed as so essential to our progress as a society,” Comins said.
Jeffrey O’Leary, Ph.D., an associate professor in the Humanities Department at Mitchell College, said that the society had taken a responsible first step. “Institutions with controversial connections to the past, such as slavery, must recognize that history,” he said. “Not doing so fosters inaccurate historical narratives that continue cycles of oppression and structural racism.”
O’Leary, who is teaching a course this semester called “Marble, Monuments, and Memory: Culture and Commemoration in Society,” likened the situation to questions being asked nationwide, and right here in New London, about the presence of statues and monuments that ultimately represent supporters of slavery.
Municipalities, schools and organizations like the Audubon Society should aim to create a more inclusive environment and educate and discuss the controversial history associated with them, he said.
“It is vitally important that every American learn about the cruel and complex legacy of slavery in this country and how our society has decided to remember it. As we continue to see statues and other monuments to the Confederacy and Christopher Columbus come down, we must ask ourselves why they were put up in the first place,” O’Leary said.
Confronting the past may not be easy, he added, but is necessary. “Learning about the past can, at times, be uncomfortable for many; the alternative, however, of presenting history through rose-colored glasses and referencing “the good old days” is not only dangerous but, as we have all seen, deadly.”
Although it is up to cities and towns, schools and organizations to decide whether they should re-name themselves to cut ties to slavery, the professor said in his opinion, it should be done. “We need to ask ourselves — what legacy do we want to leave behind?”
For Barbara David of Lyme, an Audubon Society member and donor for more than a decade, the Audubon Society has built its own legacy of conservation and environmentalism that should not be undone by a name-change.
“I don’t think we should change the name,” David said. “Just because we’re now finding out that people behaved in a way that might’ve been accepted at the time, doesn’t mean we should erase all the history. Audubon was a very important person in learning about and writing about birds.”
David said she continues to support the Audubon Society to do her part to combat a crisis she thinks needs more attention, support and resources: climate change. By supporting land conservation, environmentalism and wildlife, she hopes to make a difference. She thinks the society’s best course of action is to make a significant effort to diversify its membership and leadership in order to make people of all races and backgrounds a part of the fight to conserve the environment and wildlife.
“We’ve got a real environmental crisis that we have to pay attention to, we have to bring everybody along,” she said.
David said she thinks there is “tremendous room for improvement” of diversity in all environmental groups, which she said often grew from groups of people that had excess leisure time and money, which has historically meant upper-class white people.
“This isn’t just for rich white people anymore, it’s got to be everybody,” she said. “We can’t leave people behind anymore, we have for way too long.”
Comins said that as a whole, the society’s plan to combat its controversial history is to diversify its membership and leadership board with people of all races, ages, religions and socio-economic backgrounds. It plans to actively pursue diversity within its ranks and audience.
As for a name change, Comins said that decision ultimately would be made on a national level. “Changing the name of a 120-year-old organization has a lot of ramifications.”
Comins commended the national society for publishing an essay written by one of Audubon’s biographers, Gregory Nobles, that looks closely at Audubon’s legacy.
He urged anyone with questions, comments or concerns to reach out to him at pcomins@ctaudubon.org.