by Bill Swinford
Content warning: This article contains examples of inappropriate racial and racist slurs used in federally recognized place names.
Some 25 miles northeast of CSG National Headquarters, the town of Cynthiana lies quietly among the rolling hills of central Kentucky. Established in 1793, legend has it the small town is affixed to land owned by Robert Harrison, whose daughters were Cynthia and Anna.
The majority of city and place names across the United States share similarly innocuous heritages. However, even in 2022, the country remains littered with monikers with a more sinister foundation or that have not worn well with the passage of time. These names come under increasing scrutiny as Americans’ understanding of the darker passages of our shared racial history — and the impact of words — continues to evolve.
How to Change a Geographic Name
The U.S. Board on Geographic Names oversees the process of naming and renaming towns, bodies of water, roadways and other official place names. In the federal year that ended in October 2021, this board reviewed 430 name-change proposals from across the country. Information on the federal process for proposing original names or name changes is available at usgs.gov/us-board-on-geographic-names/how-do-i.
Over the last few decades and more so in recent years, the geographic names board has recognized in its documents and on its website that names and their meanings evolve and words that appeared on maps a century or even a few decades ago may no longer be acceptable. Those petitioning to rename a place are asked to indicate on the application why the existing name is considered offensive.
“Once named, a geographic feature can never be ‘unnamed,’ only changed to another name,” the U.S. Board on Geographic Names website states. “Geographic names are often well-established on maps, documents, signs and on websites, and to remove them without a compelling reason may lead to confusion.”
The board asks individuals or organizations who wish to propose a change to a name, including those considered derogatory or offensive, to make every effort to research the history of the existing name, and wherever possible, provide a replacement that retains its history or geography. If it can be determined that the name referred to an early settler, or owner or inhabitant of the property, or to an event or incident that happened at that location, the name should reflect that history; such names are preferred over ones that have no significance to the local community, and as such are more likely to be accepted and used. As with new name proposals the most important policy is local use and acceptance. For example, when changes are considered to names associated with Native Americans, the Board on Geographic Names often solicits feedback from all 574 federally recognized tribes.
The geographic name board welcomes proposals from any entity but gives considerable deference to state policymakers during review. The board asks state officials to view the reexamination of place names as an effort toward greater inclusion of all constituents, particularly those from traditionally marginalized populations. Every time children learn about their local history, every time a local business advertises, every time people post their location on social media, it is a reminder of what a local community was and is.
The board values consensus, not only on the need to change a name but also on what name will replace it.
In 2018, the Georgia state Senate unanimously voted to rename Runaway Negro Creek on the Georgia coast to “Freedom Creek.”
“Intentional or not, the current name of such creek serves to cast, edify, and perpetuate a posture of criminality upon the men and women who pursued the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” stated Senate Resolution 685.
State Sen. Lester Jackson, who sponsored the resolution, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “It’s not changing history, it’s redefining it.”
The new creek name moved the focus from slaveholders who saw property running away to a human being running toward freedom, Jackson said.
A Renewed Urgency for Change
A lack of agreement upon the need for change or the alternative name can slow the process considerably. State leaders can make board review more efficient by working toward processes that yield consensus.
The board has previously been criticized for being slow and cumbersome in responding to requests for name changes. The current process includes several layers of review, and it can take years for the naming board to take final action (with no guarantee that petitions for change will ever be accepted). Momentum for faster action on name changes continues to build at the federal level. In summer 2021, more than two dozen members of Congress introduced the Reconciliation in Place Names Act, which would focus federal attention on some of the 1,441 places in the U.S. identified in 2015 as having offensive names. The act would create an advisory board to the Board of Geographic Names and an expedited process for review and implementation of requested name changes.
The advisory board would actively seek the review of potentially offensive names (currently the Board on Geographic Names is merely reactive, awaiting proposals from government bodies and private organizations and individuals).
“Derogatory terms (…) should not be included in the names of geographical places across the landscape of our nation,” stated Rep. Al Green, who co-sponsored the legislation. “These terms are harmful relics from the era of invidious yet lawful discrimination that must be removed from public property.”
In the previous Congress (2019-20), the act was co-sponsored by then-Rep. Deb Haaland, who now serves as U.S. Secretary of the Interior. Haaland also has sought to accelerate the nation’s reconsideration of names. In November 2021, Haaland issued a Secretarial Order that, among other things, “…formally identifies the term ‘squaw’ as derogatory and creates a federal task force to find replacement names for geographic features on federal lands bearing the term. The term has historically been used as an offensive ethnic, racial, and sexist slur, particularly for Indigenous women. There are currently more than 650 federal land units that contain the term, according to a database maintained by the Board on Geographic Names.”
While federal legislation is stalled in committee and federal officials take individual actions, there are success stories emanating from the states that can offer a road map for policymakers seeking changes in their districts and states. With a renewed sense of urgency, states are examining their processes for proposing changes. For example:
California announced in 2020 “a series of actions to identify and redress discriminatory names of features attached to State Parks and transportation systems.”
Colorado recently created a state board to evaluate proposals for recommendation to the federal Board on Geographic Names. The Colorado board has made derogatory names a priority for action. For example, areas such as Negro Mesa, Chinaman Gulch and Redskin Mountain are under review.
The Georgia Senate successfully petitioned – through a Senate Resolution – that the Board on Geographic Names change the name of “Runaway Negro Creek” to “Freedom Creek”.
Texas policymakers, led by Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis, successfully navigated the federal process so that 16 sites in Texas no longer bear the name “Negro”. It was a long time coming. When Ellis was in the state legislature, he introduced a bill to do just that — in 1991.
In Vermont, state leaders and private citizens agree that the name “Negro Brook” needs to be replaced; but they remain stalled over what alternative to propose to the federal Board.
This article appeared in the CSG Capitol Ideas magazine (2022, Issue 2). View current and past issues at csg.org/publications/capitol-ideas.
