What’s in a Name?
The Audubon Society Vote and the Legacy of John James Audubon
Jillian Suh Kurovski-Legris
March 27, 2023
Foundations of ornithology, immense artistic talent, and ingenuity are all a part of the legacy of John James Audubon. The enslavement of human beings, the desecration of indigenous graves, tall tales, and profiting from black and brown bodies while diminishing humanity are also tied to his name and legacy.
Recently, in 2023, the Audubon society had a vote amongst its board of directors on whether or not to change the name of the society. The board voted to keep the Audubon name, dividing its members. Ultimately, three directors resigned from their positions.
There are many articles and books that discuss the life and legacy of John J. Audubon. Many short articles and articles from a handful of years ago (think 2020) have been circulating in lieu of the vote, so why is this article any different? Most articles on the Audubon vote fail to mention the full depth of Audubon’s legacy in racism and the impact of the Audubon Society name, both good and bad. I wanted to put as much of it as I can in one place for everyone as it pertains to the vote. So, who was John J. Audubon? Why is he called racist? And why consider changing the name of the Audubon society?
Disclaimer: I am not a part of the Audubon Society, nor am I an ornithologist, but I know and love many people who are. I was not part of the Audubon vote or research in any meaningful way. I am writing this as an outsider to the Audubon Society. I can only speak for myself. My own opinions and this blog are not associated with any organization or institution.
John James Audubon
John James Audubon was born in 1785 as Jean Rabin in Les Cayes, a French colony of Saint-Domingue, now known as Haiti. An illegitimate child, his father was Jean Audubon, a plantation owner, enslaver of human beings, and sea captain. Audubon’s mother is listed on documents regarding his birth as “Mlle Rabin” [i]. There is speculation surrounding Audubon’s parentage, as there is a possibility that Audubon’s mother may have been multiracial or a enslaved herself[ii] (Audubon’s half-sister is multiracial), but scholars such as Roberta J.M. Olson vehemently fight these claims[iii], with evidence to argue that Gregory Noble, original author of this claim, may not be making this assertion from credible sources.
The Haitian revolution began in August of 1791. Audubon would have been around 6 at the time, but had been moved to France three years prior. His father had sold his plantation in Haiti due to the increasing number of slave uprisings. Living in France, now named Jean-Jacques Fougère Audubon, it was likely the young Audubon at least vaguely knew of the events ongoing in Haiti. The reality of slavery would always be present in Audubon’s life. More to come on that later.
Audubon’s father moves him to the U.S. at the age of 18 to avoid his son being drafted into Napolean’s war. Audubon has an upbringing filled with wildlife. His skills in shooting and illustration began in his childhood, leading him to his profound interest and talent in studying birds. At this time, Audubon changed his name from Jean Jacques to the anglicized John James Audubon[iv].
Audubon is highly praised in many articles and books. His accomplishments and talents cannot be understated. I choose to pass on highlighting his achievements, as there is enough literature to fill that gap. To give you the TLDR of why Audubon becomes a wildly significant naturalist: he is one of the first people to be documented in English to have practiced early bird banding. Audubon, like many, took interest in birds flying overhead, wondering if he ever saw the same bird twice. To satisfy his curiosity, Audubon tied a string around the legs of birds, so he would know which ones he had already seen- furthering colonial knowledge in bird migration and behavior. Audubon would tell this story of his childhood nearly 30 years after it had occurred. Current evidence points to the story being fabricated by Audubon to some extent[v].
Most notably, Audubon is best known today for being one of the first majorly successful taxidermists and illustrators of birds. In Audubon’s time, it was difficult to capture the life-like essence of birds in taxidermy or illustration. Birds were often stuffed with arsenic and rope and then drawn postmortem, but the poor stuffing often left birds looking limp and unrecognizable. Audubon set himself apart by rigging birds in a “wire armature” to pose the birds he had shot. He would then illustrate them to a life-like extent[vi].
I do not think Audubon can be blamed for being born to plantation owners, nor can he be blamed for France or the United States’ enslavement of human beings, but there comes a point where Audubon makes a conscious decision for himself as to whether or not he will take part in slavery.
In 1808 Audubon moved to Kentucky where he met and married Lucy Bakewell. Lucy cared for their two children while Audubon sought work as a store owner on the frontier. Audubon could not make enough to support both his family and his passion for illustration, so he returned to his roots in buying and selling human beings.
Audubon’s family had 9 enslaved people. Audubon would purposefully target areas in and around the Kentucky frontier that saw decreasing numbers of enslaved people due to illness. The profit he made went directly towards his bird watching and illustrations.
Here is where many point to, “slavery was normal for the time. He was a man of his time” but abolition and equality amongst different races had been discussed since before Audubon’s birth. France had long been in discussion over slavery and equal rights. Slavery was abolished in the French colonies in 1794 (Napolean reinstated it in 1802) and formally abolished across France in 1848[vii]. Meanwhile, in the United States, Benjamin Franklin published several essays in 1789 supporting abolition. Franklin has a complicated history with slavery, as he once had enslaved persons while relaying in private correspondence and Quaker Pamphlets that he condemned slavery[viii]. Safehouses, the roots of the Underground Railroad, had existed since the early 1780s[ix]. By 1808 the U.S. had outlawed the importation of enslaved people[x]. This is all to say that Audubon knew of abolition and was likely familiar with the discourse surrounding it. Not everyone in Audubon’s time supported the enslavement of human beings.
The panic of 1819 brings sweeping financial hardship across the United States. Audubon and his family lose everything, including their house. Audubon himself lands in jail for his debts. The only meaningful possessions he had left were his pencils and illustrations. So, he turned to portraits, museum taxidermy, and illustrations to regain financial stability.
In 1820 Audubon gains some notoriety for his skill in stuffing birds[xi]. Museums enlist Audubon for shooting and stuffing. Though stiffed by the Cincinnati Museum for $1,200, Audubon gains enough financially to once again buy and sell human beings to support his family and his artwork. Audubon was tactful in diminishing the humanity of black and brown people while profiting from their labor and their bodies. This is illustrated by Richard Rhodes in a Smithsonian Magazine article who writes:
“In writing about an expedition in Florida in December 1831, Audubon noted that he set out in a boat with six enslaved Black men—“hands,” as he called them—and “three white men,” his emphasis clearly underscoring the racial divide in the boat and his place on the white side of it.”[xii]
In 1826, Audubon sets out to create his most infamous work, Birds of America, a book filled with life-size illustrations of birds. Of course, this book would take an immense amount of funding and support to produce. Audubon estimated that it would cost him roughly $115,640 to produce Birds of America, equivalent to $2,141,000 today. Audubon would raise most of this money himself through touring with his birds and illustrations in Europe.
To garner interest in his work, Audubon amazes European investors with an illustration of what he called the bird of Washington (Falco washingtonii). He claimed to have discovered the large species and it was the first species to be engraved for his Birds of America. In the 1820s, the scientific standard was to provide physical evidence of the species along with illustrations and descriptions. Audubon claimed to once have had the bird in his possession. He said the painting of the bird was based on a specimen that he had collected in Kentucky. No bird of the same description has been found since Audubon’s writing and illustration. It is safe to say Audubon had forged the existence of the bird to gain headway for Birds of America. Six other cases of plagiarism in Audubon’s works have been found since[xiii]. Matthew R. Halley writes a wonderful open-access paper published in BioOne about Audubon’s bird forgery, acts of data falsification, and the lasting impacts they have had on science and the ornithological community.
Not only did Audubon forge stories of birds, but of people too. Accompanying Birds of America was Audubon’s Ornithological Biography whose purpose was to give descriptions of the illustrated birds and bring a narrative to the American outdoors. Gregory Nobles writing for the Audubon Society notes that Audubon “manipulated racial tensions to enhance his notoriety.” In the tale of “The Runaway,” Audubon writes about how he was hunting with his dog when he came across an armed black man.
“Scarcely had I stood erect on the opposite bank, when my dog ran to me, exhibiting marks of terror, his eyes seeming ready to burst from their sockets, and his mouth grinning with the expression of hatred, while his feelings found vent in a stifled growl. Thinking that all this was produced by the scent of a wolf or bear, I stopped to take up my gun, when a stentorial voice commanded me to stand still, or die!" Such a "qui vive" in these woods was as unexpected as it was rare. I instantly raised and cocked my gun; and although I did not yet perceive the individual who had thus issued so peremptory a mandate, I felt determined to combat with him for the free passage of the grounds. Presently a tall firmly-built Negro emerged from the bushy underwood, where, until that moment, he must have been crouched, and in a louder voice repeated his injunction. Had I pressed a trigger, his life would have instantly terminated; but observing that the gun, which he aimed at my breast, was a wretched rusty piece, from which fire could not readily be produced, I felt little fear, and therefore did not judge it necessary to proceed at once to extremities. I laid my gun at my side, tapped my dog quietly, and asked the man what he wanted.”[xiv]
The tense encounter softens as Audubon learns that the man and his family had escaped being enslaved but were living in a swamp. The man asks Audubon to follow him to the family’s encampment and Audubon obliges. He learns that the family had all been auctioned, separating all of them. So, the father escaped to find his wife and children. The man and his wife beg Audubon to help them find a better living situation for their children.
“The runaways, after disclosing their secret to me, both rose from their seat, with eyes full of tears. "Good master, for God's sake, do something for us and our children," they sobbed forth with one accord. Their little ones lay sound asleep in the fearlessness of their innocence. Who could have heard such a tale without emotion? I promised them my most cordial assistance.”[xv]
Audubon says he knows their former master and that the master had treated them with kindness. So, his solution was to bring the family as one unit back to the original master and have them re-purchased from their separate masters.
“He afterwards re-purchased them from their owners, and treated them with his former kindness; so that they were rendered as happy as slaves generally are in that country, and continued to cherish that attachment to each other which had led to their adventures. Since this event happened, it has, I have been informed, become illegal to separate slave families without their consent.”[xvi]
In this story, Audubon plays upon the tense encounter with the armed Black man to catch the attention of his readers. He attempts to appeal to the readers who are sympathetic of enslaved people by painting a picture of amicably staying the night with the family and talking with them. He ends by appealing to anti-abolition readers by upholding the institution of slavery, saying the family was happier to be brought back to a plantation. Nobles writes it best:
“In the span of a single story—true or not, and many of Audubon’s “Episodes” were not—Audubon portrayed himself as both a savior of a fugitive family and a defender of slaveholders’ claims to human property rights.”[xvii]
Audubon never loses his ties to slavery, telling some later in life that his mother was murdered in a slave uprising. We know that much is untrue about his mother. Researchers agree that Audubon’s mother died shortly after his birth. It is likely she died from the complications of birth and was noted to have been suffering from illness prior to Audubon’s birth[xviii]. Robert Evans, podcast host of Behind the Bastards, notes that this could have been a way for Audubon to take advantage of the fear of slave uprisings[xix]. It may have also been a way to maintain vested interest in Audubon’s work.
One such person invested in Audubon’s work was Samuel George Morton. Morton is best known for founding what is now known as the debunked study of phrenology. In short, Morton believed that intelligence was tied to cranial capacity, thus, he wanted to prove that people of color had smaller cranial capacity than white people. Morton and Audubon were thought to be good friends, with Morton providing Audubon a place in academic society as well as settling some of Audubon’s debts and rivalries. In return, Audubon brought Morton human skulls[xx].
In Audubon’s older age, he wanted to have one last great adventure taking on documenting the Quadrupeds of North America. Audubon searched for mammals as well as indigenous villages. In the 1830s, smallpox devastated many indigenous communities leaving few to help bury the deceased. Audubon took advantage of this devastation by visiting the Mandan and Assiniboin villages to rob them of their loved one’s remains. Audubon described some of the native people he encountered as “miserably poor, filthy beyond description.”[xxi] In taking from the Mandan and Assiniboin, Audubon writes,
“I found an Indian’s skull (an Assiniboin) and put it in my game pouch.”[xxii]
Another entry states,
“walked off with a bag of instruments to take off the head of a three-years dead Indian chief, called the White Cow.”[xxiii]
As Ann Fabian writes for Common Place, “they took the head… and left the rest on the ground.”
Fabian continues, adding:
“Morton’s catalogue also credited Audubon with contributing the skull of a 50-year-old Blackfoot man named “Bloody Hand,” along with the heads of two “Upsaroooka” men, both about 40 years old. And two skulls: “1230. Assinaboin Indian of Missouri: woman, aetat. 20. I.C. 85. 1231. Assinaboin woman, aetat. 18. I.C. 85.” “Nos. 1230 and 1231, from J.J. Audubon, Esq., A.D. 1845,” Morton added. Audubon’s memory of the “Indian skull” tucked in his game pouch and Morton’s measurements are all we have left of these two young women—a small trace of racism’s heavy toll.”
It is unclear how many human skulls from Morton's collection provided by Audubon have been returned to their rightful homes.
This list of accounts is not exhaustive, and there are many more journal entries and tales of Audubon that bring his truth to light. If you would like to dive deeper into the history of John James Audubon, I recommend many of the authors and articles cited here. I first learned about Audubon's dark legacy through the Behind the Bastards Podcast. I think one important note to add is that some scholars such as Olson caution others to the interpretation of Audubon's legacy by biographers such as Nobles, especially when it comes to speculating around Audubon’s parentage. The main reasons cited are problems with French translations and non-academic publishing. While some fine details of Audubon’s life are unclear, it is evident that Audubon took a stance in his time to advocate for the institution of slavery and held little regard for people of color.
John James Audubon died on January 27th, 1851 at the age of 65. The Audubon Society was formed 50 years later in 1905.
The Audubon Vote Matters
The Audubon Society is a globally recognized name. To say they have done a tremendous amount to further scientific knowledge of birds as well as inspire and uplift the casual birdwatcher is an understatement. The Audubon name stretches across twenty-three state programs, 41 centers, over 450 local chapters, and countless individuals. The name “Audubon” is unifying.
On March 16th, 2023, the Audubon Society Board of Directors announced that the Society would not be changing its name. The process leading up to the vote took over a year with an intensive evaluation process. Over 2,300 people from the National Audubon Society were surveyed. A research team was dedicated to examining the life of John James Audubon. At the end of all the surveying and research, the team recommended whether to change the name. That recommendation has not been made public to my knowledge, and the Audubon Society announced that they do not plan to share the results of the survey or the count of the vote.
The explanation in favor of keeping the name is listed on the Audubon website under an article titled, “Frequently Asked Questions About the Audubon Name.”
“Based on the critical threats to birds that Audubon must urgently address and the need to remain a non-partisan force for conservation, the Board determined that retaining the name would enable NAS to direct key resources and focus towards enacting the organization’s mission. The Board’s decision enables the organization to focus its time, resources, and capacity on the organization’s new Strategic Plan and putting its equity, diversity, inclusion, and belonging (EDIB) commitments into action.”
The Audubon vote resulted in three directors resigning and many members frustrated at the decision. Chapters have vowed to change their names or put resources toward uplifting marginalized members of the Society. The National Society itself has committed $25,000,000 towards expanding Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, but can money compensate for the damage that has been done?
I have heard anecdotal evidence that some people refuse to join an Audubon chapter or the National Audubon Society because of its name. I think it’s fair to say that George Floyd and the events of 2020 forced scientific communities across the United States and beyond to reckon with our roots in anti-blackness, colonialism, and white supremacy. Black and indigenous knowledge is core and essential to our understanding of the sciences (because that knowledge IS science), yet they are often excluded in discussions surrounding scientific foundations, innovation, and technology.
Audubon’s work was built on the bodies and labor of black and brown people. From selling human beings for art supplies to using indigenous knowledge for hunting and robbing indigenous graves. The practice of exploiting and diminishing marginalized people in the sciences exists to this day. Many scientific institutions and societies profit from the work of marginalized people without giving them credit or proper compensation, all the while maintaining systemic barriers that gatekeep academia.
I was moved by the writing of Dr. J. Drew Lanham, a Black American ornithologist writing in 2021 for Audubon Magazine (I encourage everyone to read his article). He writes on his experience as a birder, and how he processed the truth of Audubon’s life and history. What stuck with me most is that Lanham is firm in saying the discussion of race and history is critical in the world of birding: “it belongs here”, and I couldn’t agree more.
Whether the Audubon Society changes their name or not, the vote has opened yet another avenue of discourse surrounding racism in the natural sciences both past and present. Scientific communities such as the Audubon Society are not free from racism within their membership. I ask myself how the vote is interpreted by the many members of the Society across all their diverse backgrounds. I also ask myself how the vote is interpreted by organizations that find themselves making similar decisions.
My hope is that these discussions lead to action; be it in the National Audubon Society, a local chapter, or a completely unrelated organization moved by what has transpired.
As a scientist, I firmly believe that you cannot have great science unless it’s inclusive and accessible. While the Audubon Society board of directors may feel there is much to be lost in changing the name, there is also great loss in keeping it. What’s more, this is not an isolated event in the scientific community. Name changes for organizations and taxonomic naming have become widely discussed within academia.
One recent example I can think of is the Entomological Society of America (ESA). ESA hosts what was previously called the “Linnean Games," an intense trivia battle among entomologists. It’s an incredibly exciting and mind-boggling event to witness. The name of the event was recently changed to the “Entomology Games” to acknowledge the racist history of Carl Linnaeus, the founding father of taxonomy (by the way, that’s not his original name; He changed it to sound Latin). While Linnaeus is often hailed as a hero of the sciences, he is less known for his classification of human beings based on race (my university biology courses certainly did not mention this to me). Linnaeus formally prescribed white, red, black, and yellow as skin colors as well as assigning white people the character traits of “wise”, “gentle”, and “lawful.”
Say what you will about Linnaeus being a man of his time, but it is evident that these stereotypes continue to exist in the modern day. I find myself in a similar position as Dr. J. Drew Lanham. I studied taxonomy for my master's degree and have an active role in it as an arachnologist attempting to understand the diversity of spiders in the world. I shudder in thinking that Linnaeus is part of the reason why I have a difficult relationship with the word and the color "yellow."
Like the Audubon vote, many members of the ESA wrote a formal letter and petition to have the name changed to “Entomology Games.” While the students of ESA rallied, many put up a fight against the name change. The movement to change the name began in 2018. The official name changed on July 7, 2020, with the ESA president Alvin Simmons releasing the following statement:
“National events this year have brought issues of diversity and inclusion within our discipline and our Society to the forefront. Ultimately, the board believed that the loss of any student competitors who felt unwelcome because of the name of the Games went against ESA's commitment to diversity, inclusion, and students as the future of entomology. A name can be replaced, but each entomologist brings a unique and valuable contribution to our Society that is irreplaceable. The Entomology Games will continue ESA's traditions of fun, competition, and school pride.”
ESA had a similar process and task force to the Audubon Society. Read more from ESA's page here.
While the situations differ in many ways, there remains the fact that people had felt excluded or rightfully wary of organizations that had names rooted in racism.
David Bell, featured host on the Behind the Bastards episode about Audubon, put it best:
“We are built upon shame. You have to own it.”
Audubon himself went through several name changes (largely at the behest of his parents) to match ongoing political and social change[xxiv]. The illegitimacy in his name and parentage bothered him for his entire career. To compensate for what he saw as his shortcoming, he vowed to make good in his name. So, Audubon Society, will you make good in yours?
Citation List
[i]F.H. Herrick, Audubon the Naturalist: A History of His Life and Time, 2 vols. (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1917). [ii]Gregory Nobles, John James Audubon: The Nature of the American Woodsman (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017). [iii]Roberta J. M. Olson, “HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT: NEW EVIDENCE ABOUT THE BIRTH, IDENTITY, AND STRATEGIC PSEUDONYMS OF JOHN JAMES AUDUBON,” Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 163, no. 4 (September 2, 2021), https://doi.org/10.3099/MCZ70. [iv]Richard Rhodes, John James Audubon: The Making of an American (New York: Vintage Books, 2006). [v]Matthew R. Halley, “Audubon’s Famous Banding Experiment: Fact or Fiction?,” Archives of Natural History 45, no. 1 (April 2018): 118–21, https://doi.org/10.3366/anh.2018.0487. [vi]Rhodes, John James Audubon. [vii]Sue Peabody, “French Emancipation,” in Atlantic History, by Sue Peabody (Oxford University Press, 2014), https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199730414-0253. [viii]The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, “Benjamin Franklin’s Anti-Slavery Petitions to Congress,” government, National Archives (blog), n.d., https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/franklin. [ix]History.com, “Slavery in America,” History (blog), n.d., https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery. [x]Yale University, “Abolitionism Timeline,” university, Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition (blog), n.d., https://glc.yale.edu/abolitionism-timeline; Southern New Hampshire University, “Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves,” university, Southern New Hampshire University Shapiro Library (blog), n.d., https://libguides.snhu.edu/c.php?g=1184812&p=8902755#:~:text=Northern%20states%20were%20against%20the,importation%20of%20slaves%20until%201808. [xi]Richard Rhodes, “John James Audubon: America’s Rare Bird,” Smithsonian Magazine, December 1, 2004, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/john-james-audubon-americas-rare-bird-97819781/. [xii]Rhodes. [xiii]Matthew R. Halley, “Audubon’s Bird of Washington: Unravelling the Fraud That Launched The Birds of America,” Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club 140, no. 2 (June 22, 2020): 110, https://doi.org/10.25226/bboc.v140i2.2020.a3. [xiv]John James Audubon, Maria Rebecca Audubon, and Elliott Coues, The Missouri River Journal 1843 (Continued) Episodes (Scribner’s Sons, 1897). [xv]Audubon, Audubon, and Coues. [xvi]Audubon, Audubon, and Coues. [xvii]Gregory Nobles, “The Myth of John James Audubon,” Audubon News (blog), July 31, 2020, https://www.audubon.org/news/the-myth-john-james-audubon. [xviii]Olson, “HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT.” [xix]Robert Evans, “The Audubon Guy Was a Monster,” Behind the Bastards, n.d. [xx]Ann Fabian, “‘WE LEFT ALL ON THE GROUND BUT THE HEAD’: J. J. AUDUBON’S HUMAN SKULLS,” n.d., http://commonplace.online/article/audubons-human-skulls/. [xxi]Fabian. [xxii]John James Audubon, The Missouri River Journals of John James Audubon, ed. Daniel Patterson (UNP - Nebraska, 2016), https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1d4v15r. [xxiii]Audubon. [xxiv]Olson, “HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT.”
Comments