Right gesture

Choosing names for towns, streets, buildings, and parks always is done with the best of intentions. Most salute historical figures or pioneers, and those who made outstanding contributions to the community.
They are meant to celebrate our past and typically are a source of great pride.
And once something bears someone’s name, a move to change it often sparks outrage—as illustrated by the furore here over plans to rename the Sister Kennedy Centre to “Pleasant Pastimes Place” back in the 1990s.
But it’s also clear not all names stand the test of time. The Washington Redskins’ nickname, for instance, is now regarded as a racial slur and there’s a growing howl of protest to change it.
Pither’s Point Park here is another example. Named after an Indian agent dispatched to negotiate treaties and land deals with the natives more than a century ago, it’s obvious his name remains a bitter source of contention with area First Nations to this day.
Not surprisingly, the decision by Fort Frances council to drop the name “Pither” from the “Point” has stirred plenty of community interest—with residents almost equally split over whether they agree with it or not. Of the 541 responses to the Times’ weekly web poll as of late this morning, 40 percent disagreed with dropping the name, 38 percent agreed, and 22 percent didn’t care.
There’s no question names can be a divisive issue—and a slippery slope. As Robert Berg pointed out in this letter to the editor this week, does this mean we should remove all historical references to avoid any possible controversy?
The answer is no. In this particular instance, however, town council made the right gesture in opting to drop “Pither” in hopes of finding a new name that better reflects the area’s history while bridging cultures, not dividing them.
It’s also an important lesson to heed if the time comes to name something in future.