[at-l] Re: Chunky Gal Trail and other interesting names.

[Tim.Hewitt@fairchildsemi.com (Tim Hewitt)]

"t." <tjfort@netdoor.com> wrote:

> at the risk of another political discussion.  But it really is related
> to us all.
> 
> OB: wrote : 
> 
>> 64, such as Chunky Gal Trail, just west of Deep Gap.
> 
> this brings up a story I heard yesterday
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/national/020501/names_park.sml
> 
> the gist of it is : some groups want to change the names of landmarks
> they find offensive.  like squaw creak, etc.  I'm sure a lot of us
> have a favorite spot whose name would be politically incorrect.  would
> you support changing its name so NO ONE would be able to take
> offense?  for instance : big Butt??
> 
> personally, I say leave them alone.
> 
> anyone else have an opinion?

I think that we should simply number landmarks randomly, so that no one
takes offence.

Landmark #1 could be the former White House in Washington DC. How DARE the
US government call any public building the White House!  What were they
thinking! Aren't people of color offended? Besides, we could paint it some
other color if we rename it.

Landmark #2 could be the former Standing Indian Mountain. Standing First
Nations Peoples Mountain is too long. Standing Native American Mountain is
not representative of pre-American residency. Is there a problem with the
word Standing? Shoot, just number the thing and move on. Can't have a
landmark numbered 666 or 69 though. I'm sure there are other numbers that
should be disallowed as well...

Sorry. I hate this $#!^.  An area high school just changed their name from
the Indians to the Red Storm. I'm sure that someone from the former Soviet
Block will be offended by this one next.

I'll be quiet now...

-p