What Goes Into a Name Change?
About a year ago we changed the name of the church I served from Left Hand Church to Envision Community Church. A couple of members drove the change, with the support of the majority of our leadership. I did not oppose the name change. But now that the church is closed, I do have some thoughts about whether or not it was necessary.
We changed the church’s name because of concerns about cultural appropriation. Why did we name it Left Hand Church in the first place? Left Hand is a canyon and creek between Boulder and Lyons in Boulder County. The creek runs through Longmont and eventually makes its way to the South Platte River. Left Hand is a name people identify with the entire county, not just one city within the county. As a church for the entire region, we wanted a name that reflected that truth. Left Hand felt like the right choice. We were not alone. There are 34 entities using the Left Hand name, including a well-known brewing company.
Left Hand Canyon and Creek are named for Chief Niwot, a chief of the Southern Arapaho people who was tragically assassinated in the Sand Creek Massacre in 1864. (A massacre led by a US colonel who was also a Methodist pastor, I might add. Oh, the things we do in the name of religion.)
Niwot was translated Left Hand in English. Apparently, Chief Niwot was among the ten percent of humans who are left-handed. He was also a generous soul who wanted to welcome European settlers, which makes his assassination even more heinous. It was with respect that his name was chosen for the creek and canyon and church.
What does this have to do with cultural appropriation, you might ask? Cultural appropriation is one of five markers of what Yasha Mounk calls the identity synthesis, markers he believes do more to separate us than bring us together. It is the notion that we should be identified primarily by the smallest common denominator of our identity. That identity is ours and only ours to experience and know. For anyone else to borrow elements of that identity is an unacceptable appropriation.
But what if I do not want to be known by my lowest common denominator? What if I do not want to be seen primarily as a white transgender woman? I prefer to focus on my commonality with other humans, not what separates me from them. I believe this new form of extreme segregation in the name of one’s unique identity is more divisive than unitive.
I do not want to be misunderstood. I do know European settlers destroyed Native Americans and their culture as they marched across the country with their destructive notion of Manifest Destiny. The arrogance is astonishing. But is the only way to rectify that sin to separate even further, to draw lines between us that destroy any hope of the traditional liberal humanism that emphasizes our commonalities, not our differences? I cannot see where today’s extreme identity synthesis has any hope of bringing about true reconciliation. I see it only dividing us further.
There is not a culture on earth that is purely itself, uncontaminated by other cultures. All are an amalgamation of many cultures. The group with the least cohesive identity in the unfolding of the United States was the Scots-Irish. Originally clans from Scotland, they had been forced to move to Ireland in the 1600s to stop the Spanish from bringing Roman Catholicism to the Emerald Isle. The Scots-Irish never wanted to be in Ireland and came in droves to the Colonies between 1715 and 1760, heading to the western frontier, where they intermarried with pretty much any group they found, creating an entirely new identity in the process.
The result was Appalachian culture, which birthed bluegrass and country music, among many other rich cultural traditions. It created American evangelicalism, turning the Great Revival into a national phenomenon. Elements of the culture are Irish, Scottish, Native American, English, and a plethora of other cultures and nationalities. What is their lowest common denominator? No one knows.
I am talking about my own roots. I am English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh. Each its own distinct culture, but in the Ohio Valley, where I was raised, we were identified as Scots-Irish. The Scots-Irish died in disproportionate numbers in every war ever fought by our nation. We were not respected in the northlands, where they referred to us as hillbillies. Our identity was honed in the heart of Appalachia. (That middle “a” is a short one in case you don’t know how to pronounce it.)
There are no pure cultures. In my own family we have Indian, West Indian, German, and Scots-Irish identities. Jubi, whio is Indian, fixes amazing fried chicken. Cathy does too. She’s German. So does Jael, also Indian, and Jana, German and Scots-Irish. I’m pretty sure fried chicken is not a staple of any of those specific cultures. Is it wrong for Cathy, Jubi, Jael, and Jana to fry a chicken in the manner of my Grandma Stone? Should Jubi only be allowed to fix Indian food, and Cathy German food? I do not believe Cathy, Jubi, Jael, or Jana are appropriating Appalachian culture. They are frying chicken, something for which I am extremely grateful. (I doubt the chickens share my sentiment.)
In my opinion, using the name “Left Hand” was not culturally inappropriate. We are a part of the stew pot that is America. America never was a melting pot. Cultures do not disappear, they take on flavors of other cultures over long periods of time. That is a universal truth of our species.
Should we be appalled by prejudice and oppression? Absolutely. Should do everything we can to bring about equality and equity? Yes. But I do not think any of that precludes celebrating our common humanity more than we celebrate our specific uniqueness. We are all on this fragile planet together.
I believe it was appropriate to honor Chief Left Hand and his people by using his name for our church. I believe the identity synthesis now sweeping our nation is not helpful. Many of you will disagree. That’s okay. Disagreements are usually not microaggressions. Most of the time, they are just discourse.
This is an important subject that needs to be discussed. Unfortunately, in today’s world everyone cowers in the shadows for fear of offending someone unknowingly. We’re frightened of being identified as culturally insensitive or guilty of microagressions. What this extreme perspective has wrought is not dialog, but fear. If we only focus on that which separates us, and not on that which we share in common, I am afraid today’s cultural divide only gets worse.
So, let’s start talking. I believe the health of the species hangs in the balance.
