0 comment Thursday, May 22, 2014 | admin
Or are they significant?
I hope nobody will mind a brief diversion into something less weighty -- the subject of names. If you've read this blog very long, you will know I am sort of a student of names, including the history of names, naming trends, names in the context of culture and ethnicity, and so on. To me, at least, it's a fascinating subject.
This article from LiveScience.com discusses 'The Most Hated Baby Names in America.' According to the writer, among the most hated of today's popular names are 'Jayden, Brayden, Addison and Madison.' Those certainly are popular in these parts; I can't count the number of young children I know of who have one of those names, under some spelling or another.
Other hated names:
The most commonly cited name that put people's teeth on edge was Nevaeh, or "heaven" spelled backward. That name didn't exist until the 1990s, but it took off in popularity in 2003, shooting from the 150th most common baby name in that year to the 31st most popular in 2007 (as of 2009, it stood at No. 34).
"Nevaeh in particular seems to stand as this symbol � for what people don't like in modern baby names," Laura Wattenberg, author of "The Baby Name Wizard: A Magical Method for Finding the Perfect Name for Your Baby" (Three Rivers Press, 2005), told LiveScience.''
I've heard of several 'Nevaehs' too. It's a cringe-inducing name for me, mainly because it is so very affected and artificial. Actually my first thought was that it was the name of a skin cream.
The attitudes on names were collected from various sources, apparently internet forums and fan boards.
''Wattenberg is quick to point out that the survey isn't scientific, but it does have the advantage of capturing the names people spontaneously hate. A formal survey that gave people an option to rank names would likely bias people by putting ideas into their heads, Wattenberg said.
The survey also turned up a few interesting trends. The first is that people hate gender-bending names, particularly when a masculine name becomes feminine, as with Madison (which tied for second-most-hated for boys with 16 separate mentions) and Addison (which tied for sixth with eight mentions). They also hate names they can't spell, including Kaitlyn, which got eight mentions and tied for sixth. (People say "Caitlin" is fine because it's traditional, Wattenberg said, though the original Irish pronunciation of that spelling would be closer to "Kathleen.")
Wow, somebody who finally comprehends that the name 'Caitlin' was not originally pronounced as 'kate-lynn' but as something more similar to Kathleen. I don't think many people call their daughters Katelyn or any of its myriad variants nowadays; it's old hat, having appeared out of nowhere in the 80s. Granted it is a traditional Irish name, a form of Catherine, but it was unknown in this country until around the 1980s. I always wondered why it suddenly became so popular, especially since from its earliest usage in this country, it was mispronounced.
It appears that people must have encountered the name in print rather than hearing it spoken, hence the mispronunciation. Where were they suddenly reading the name? I would guess that some young parents, being fans of Dylan Thomas as many were then, read of his wife 'Caitlin'. They mistakenly thought the name Welsh because Thomas himself was Welsh, but Caitlin Thomas (nee MacNamara) was decidedly Irish, of an old Clare family. Still, if you read baby name books from the 80s onward, you will read that the name 'Caitlin' is a Welsh name. And thus it will always be considered in this country, or at least as long as the name is in use -- not long, probably, in such a trend-driven country as ours. It's already been displaced by names like the popular 'unisex' names, surnames which are suddenly the hottest thing for baby girls. The second paragraph in the quote above shows this: names like Addison (Addisyn, etc.) and Madison. Other, more overtly masculine-sounding surnames given as first names are the ones that irk me: names like Hunter, Tanner, Gunner, etc., being given to little girls are an abomination, in my opinion, and I blame it on feminism and the new ideal of women being 'able to do anything males can do.' And it isn't just avowed feminists who pick these 'cute' masculine names for their little girls; most women buy into feminism to some extent, whether they would label themselves feminists or not. It's just taken for granted now, the whole 'unisex' egalitarian thing. Notice in movies how many action or sci-fi movies have the 'tough chick' -- who is of course sexy, too.
And as the article points out, those originally masculine sounding surnames, at first given to boys, usually become feminine names over time, and then suddenly boys are carrying around names that are now considered 'cute' names for little budding feminist girls. Think of the guys (and there were many) given names like Tracy, Kelly, Stacy, Ashley, Brook, Kim, etc. back in mid-20th century. Now their names are considered women's names. I had an Uncle Aubrey, now passed on, but today Aubrey is seemingly becoming one of those now-feminine names.
As far as the '-son' surnames given as feminine names, our blogging compatriot Mostly Cajun in his 'Name Game' posts, often notes the absurdity of calling your little girl somebody's 'son.'
Giving males a family surname as a first name used to be fairly common among prestigious families; if you had a surname as a first name, it usually meant that you were a descendant of that family. Now it means nothing in particular, except that the parent liked the sound of the name or its association with some vapid celebrity.
There seems to be an upsurge in traditional names, often Biblical or otherwise archaic sounding names for babies, but those are still nowhere near as popular as they once were. Some more obscure Biblical names have found new popularity, names like Javan or Caleb. (Sadly, distant relatives of mine called their daughter 'Caleb'.)
But novelty seems to be the main factor in the trends these days; everybody wants to be unique and 'special' and yet in their desire to be original, the majority seem to be choosing names that other 'unique' families are choosing for their children.
I notice that black naming fashions seem to be carrying over into White society. Blacks have long had a tendency to make names up out of thin air, and to create affected and 'fancy' spellings. The latest trend is toward hyphens in the middle of first names, like Ra-Heem, and then there are the popular apostrophes, in names like D'Shelle and D'Shaun or Ty'quial. Invented names and invented spelling (and punctuation marks too) seem to have caught on among a certain group of White parents, too. Names which are misspelled or misunderstood (like 'Chastisy') are being given to White children too.
Names are a part of our ethnic/racial/national heritage, and I favor giving names that are names from your own blood lineage, from past generations, or at least a name that goes with your surname. Pairing up two very disparate names, from two different heritages, seems very awkward at best, and at times, even laughable, but it happens, in large part because parents pick names for very frivolous or arbitrary reason. Oftentimes they choose names that satisfy their own desire for attention or cachet, not thinking how the name will be perceived. And does anybody consider the original meaning of a name before bestowing it on their child? For instance, the people who named their daughter 'Caleb.' Caleb means 'dog.' Granted, most people probably wouldn't know that, but how about picking names with some thought for their meaning?
Is naming a trivial issue? To some, probably, but I think it's a serious business, as our names are part of our heritage. Each people has a store of names that are entwined with the history and the deeds and the soul of their people, and these are the names a healthy, proud group of people would favor, not ad-libbed, synthetic names or the name of today's celebrity who will be a has-been tomorrow.
We've talked before about how the most common surnames are changing in accordance with the demographic displacement of our folk, and soon, surnames like Martinez and Garcia will take the place of the Smiths and Joneses and the Andersons. I suppose unless things change, our given names will reflect the change too, as English-speaking people start to name their babies exotic names instead of the time-honored names of our past.
The name trends of today reflect the deracination of our people, and their rootlessness in many cases, their deculturation. It's not a happy thing to witness, much as we might joke about it or treat it frivolously.
I hope nobody will mind a brief diversion into something less weighty -- the subject of names. If you've read this blog very long, you will know I am sort of a student of names, including the history of names, naming trends, names in the context of culture and ethnicity, and so on. To me, at least, it's a fascinating subject.
This article from LiveScience.com discusses 'The Most Hated Baby Names in America.' According to the writer, among the most hated of today's popular names are 'Jayden, Brayden, Addison and Madison.' Those certainly are popular in these parts; I can't count the number of young children I know of who have one of those names, under some spelling or another.
Other hated names:
The most commonly cited name that put people's teeth on edge was Nevaeh, or "heaven" spelled backward. That name didn't exist until the 1990s, but it took off in popularity in 2003, shooting from the 150th most common baby name in that year to the 31st most popular in 2007 (as of 2009, it stood at No. 34).
"Nevaeh in particular seems to stand as this symbol � for what people don't like in modern baby names," Laura Wattenberg, author of "The Baby Name Wizard: A Magical Method for Finding the Perfect Name for Your Baby" (Three Rivers Press, 2005), told LiveScience.''
I've heard of several 'Nevaehs' too. It's a cringe-inducing name for me, mainly because it is so very affected and artificial. Actually my first thought was that it was the name of a skin cream.
The attitudes on names were collected from various sources, apparently internet forums and fan boards.
''Wattenberg is quick to point out that the survey isn't scientific, but it does have the advantage of capturing the names people spontaneously hate. A formal survey that gave people an option to rank names would likely bias people by putting ideas into their heads, Wattenberg said.
The survey also turned up a few interesting trends. The first is that people hate gender-bending names, particularly when a masculine name becomes feminine, as with Madison (which tied for second-most-hated for boys with 16 separate mentions) and Addison (which tied for sixth with eight mentions). They also hate names they can't spell, including Kaitlyn, which got eight mentions and tied for sixth. (People say "Caitlin" is fine because it's traditional, Wattenberg said, though the original Irish pronunciation of that spelling would be closer to "Kathleen.")
Wow, somebody who finally comprehends that the name 'Caitlin' was not originally pronounced as 'kate-lynn' but as something more similar to Kathleen. I don't think many people call their daughters Katelyn or any of its myriad variants nowadays; it's old hat, having appeared out of nowhere in the 80s. Granted it is a traditional Irish name, a form of Catherine, but it was unknown in this country until around the 1980s. I always wondered why it suddenly became so popular, especially since from its earliest usage in this country, it was mispronounced.
It appears that people must have encountered the name in print rather than hearing it spoken, hence the mispronunciation. Where were they suddenly reading the name? I would guess that some young parents, being fans of Dylan Thomas as many were then, read of his wife 'Caitlin'. They mistakenly thought the name Welsh because Thomas himself was Welsh, but Caitlin Thomas (nee MacNamara) was decidedly Irish, of an old Clare family. Still, if you read baby name books from the 80s onward, you will read that the name 'Caitlin' is a Welsh name. And thus it will always be considered in this country, or at least as long as the name is in use -- not long, probably, in such a trend-driven country as ours. It's already been displaced by names like the popular 'unisex' names, surnames which are suddenly the hottest thing for baby girls. The second paragraph in the quote above shows this: names like Addison (Addisyn, etc.) and Madison. Other, more overtly masculine-sounding surnames given as first names are the ones that irk me: names like Hunter, Tanner, Gunner, etc., being given to little girls are an abomination, in my opinion, and I blame it on feminism and the new ideal of women being 'able to do anything males can do.' And it isn't just avowed feminists who pick these 'cute' masculine names for their little girls; most women buy into feminism to some extent, whether they would label themselves feminists or not. It's just taken for granted now, the whole 'unisex' egalitarian thing. Notice in movies how many action or sci-fi movies have the 'tough chick' -- who is of course sexy, too.
And as the article points out, those originally masculine sounding surnames, at first given to boys, usually become feminine names over time, and then suddenly boys are carrying around names that are now considered 'cute' names for little budding feminist girls. Think of the guys (and there were many) given names like Tracy, Kelly, Stacy, Ashley, Brook, Kim, etc. back in mid-20th century. Now their names are considered women's names. I had an Uncle Aubrey, now passed on, but today Aubrey is seemingly becoming one of those now-feminine names.
As far as the '-son' surnames given as feminine names, our blogging compatriot Mostly Cajun in his 'Name Game' posts, often notes the absurdity of calling your little girl somebody's 'son.'
Giving males a family surname as a first name used to be fairly common among prestigious families; if you had a surname as a first name, it usually meant that you were a descendant of that family. Now it means nothing in particular, except that the parent liked the sound of the name or its association with some vapid celebrity.
There seems to be an upsurge in traditional names, often Biblical or otherwise archaic sounding names for babies, but those are still nowhere near as popular as they once were. Some more obscure Biblical names have found new popularity, names like Javan or Caleb. (Sadly, distant relatives of mine called their daughter 'Caleb'.)
But novelty seems to be the main factor in the trends these days; everybody wants to be unique and 'special' and yet in their desire to be original, the majority seem to be choosing names that other 'unique' families are choosing for their children.
I notice that black naming fashions seem to be carrying over into White society. Blacks have long had a tendency to make names up out of thin air, and to create affected and 'fancy' spellings. The latest trend is toward hyphens in the middle of first names, like Ra-Heem, and then there are the popular apostrophes, in names like D'Shelle and D'Shaun or Ty'quial. Invented names and invented spelling (and punctuation marks too) seem to have caught on among a certain group of White parents, too. Names which are misspelled or misunderstood (like 'Chastisy') are being given to White children too.
Names are a part of our ethnic/racial/national heritage, and I favor giving names that are names from your own blood lineage, from past generations, or at least a name that goes with your surname. Pairing up two very disparate names, from two different heritages, seems very awkward at best, and at times, even laughable, but it happens, in large part because parents pick names for very frivolous or arbitrary reason. Oftentimes they choose names that satisfy their own desire for attention or cachet, not thinking how the name will be perceived. And does anybody consider the original meaning of a name before bestowing it on their child? For instance, the people who named their daughter 'Caleb.' Caleb means 'dog.' Granted, most people probably wouldn't know that, but how about picking names with some thought for their meaning?
Is naming a trivial issue? To some, probably, but I think it's a serious business, as our names are part of our heritage. Each people has a store of names that are entwined with the history and the deeds and the soul of their people, and these are the names a healthy, proud group of people would favor, not ad-libbed, synthetic names or the name of today's celebrity who will be a has-been tomorrow.
We've talked before about how the most common surnames are changing in accordance with the demographic displacement of our folk, and soon, surnames like Martinez and Garcia will take the place of the Smiths and Joneses and the Andersons. I suppose unless things change, our given names will reflect the change too, as English-speaking people start to name their babies exotic names instead of the time-honored names of our past.
The name trends of today reflect the deracination of our people, and their rootlessness in many cases, their deculturation. It's not a happy thing to witness, much as we might joke about it or treat it frivolously.
Labels: Cultural Decay, Deculturation, Deracination, Names, Western Civilization
0 comment Sunday, April 27, 2014 | admin
When I saw this news story, my attention was caught by the fact that the surname, Osgood, is one of my ancestral names, and secondarily, I was struck by the incongruity of the first name which was paired with the English surname.
I am not a football fan, so I wouldn't know the Osgood in the news story from Adam's housecat, but I did think of this piece which appeared on the Occidental Observer blog a while back.
It's titled The Decline of Old American Names. The writer also had the experience of seeing, in a news story, a similarly unlikely name, an Anglo-Saxon surname with an 'exotic' first name, borne by a young murder suspect.
It's a no-brainer these days that if you have an English or British Isles surname paired with an Arabic or faux-Arabic first name, the person so named is likely to be black.
Blogger Thomas Stewart says
"...every time in America someone in the news pops up named Robinson, Smith, Clark, Davis, Williams, Johnson or Randolph I automatically assume that the person is black. But these were apparently the names of the wealthiest slave-holding families of WASP descent. Where are their white descendants? They haven�t completely disappeared, as a Jackson or Johnson of clearly North European ancestry isn�t unheard of, but they are a minority among their namesakes.
The most common surname in the NBA is Williams, shared by twelve players. Of them, only one is white and he appears to be a blond tattooed freak who�s known for having drug problems. The league also claims three Wallaces, seven Johnsons, four Joneses, and three Youngs, all of whom are black. Obviously the NBA isn�t a representative sample of the population but from my experience I would bet the results would be around the same if one looked at the country as a whole, with a 7- or 8-1 or higher ratio of per capita old wealthy white names among American blacks compared to whites.''
I've thought the same thing. When was the last time you heard of someone surnamed Washington or Jefferson who was not black? Many other names, like those mentioned in the quote, are also primarily associated with blacks nowadays. I suppose that simply indicates that blacks have been much more prolific at reproducing than the descendants of the original bearers of those surnames.
My family surname is one that nowadays is borne by more blacks than whites, especially where I now reside. When I am in certain Southern states, notably Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, and the Carolinas, the ratio tilts more towards the White bearers of the name. Still it's somewhat unfortunate to open up a newspaper or turn on the news and see one's own surname associated with criminal activities. I wonder what my ancestors would think about that?
I know exactly what the liberal type thinks about it: first of all, it's ''racist'' to even notice that black criminals share my surname or my ancestors' surnames, much less, feel discomfort about it. And the liberal would likewise say it's my ''karma,'' because of my ancestors' evil ways. that our name has to be shamed by association with crime -- after all, weren't those old Virginia families (Randolph, Jefferson, Bland, et al) ''criminals'' too by virtue of having held slaves?
Actually though it is not just criminals who share those surnames, but also a few black celebrities and household names have the surnames of some of my ancestors, to such an extent in certain cases that the name is forever associated with those bearers of the family name.
One more factor that the blogger did not mention, but which I've noticed, is that some names which originated in the British Isles are now associated with immigrant Jewish families, by virtue of their having adopted those names when they arrived. This misleads some people into thinking the names are in fact Jewish -- names like Ross, Irving, Robinson, Stone, Lee, and many others.
The cliche has it that immigrants who changed their names were often forced by some heartless immigration official to change their foreign-sounding names to something Anglo-Saxon. I think that story is rather over-used. It appears that many immigrants chose an Anglo-sounding surname so as to better blend in, at least on paper. But rarely do the descendants of those ''forced'' to adopt an English surname ever change it back to the original old-country name. Why not? Ethnic names have become quite trendy now. Why not discard the English or Scottish name and take back the original?
Back during the Civil Rights revolution, militant blacks, usually black Moslems, adopted names that were faux-Arabic or real Arabic names, or adopted names like 'X' because their original African names had been lost, or ''stolen'' from them.
I think that is a move in the right direction; I would not want to retain a name which belongs to an utterly different ancestry or race, especially if I thought the original owners of the name were evil racists who oppressed my ancestors. I am all for the casting off of 'slave names' or imposed English surnames.
A name should tell us something about the ancestry of the person bearing it -- as should a first name, for that matter -- in my opinion. We live in a Babelesque society in which even our names have become confused and muddled, and which obfuscate our origins and our ties of kinship. But maybe that is all part of the overall plan. Names are divisive, aren't they? Just as nationality, race, and religion are divisive, and we can't have that.
I am not a football fan, so I wouldn't know the Osgood in the news story from Adam's housecat, but I did think of this piece which appeared on the Occidental Observer blog a while back.
It's titled The Decline of Old American Names. The writer also had the experience of seeing, in a news story, a similarly unlikely name, an Anglo-Saxon surname with an 'exotic' first name, borne by a young murder suspect.
It's a no-brainer these days that if you have an English or British Isles surname paired with an Arabic or faux-Arabic first name, the person so named is likely to be black.
Blogger Thomas Stewart says
"...every time in America someone in the news pops up named Robinson, Smith, Clark, Davis, Williams, Johnson or Randolph I automatically assume that the person is black. But these were apparently the names of the wealthiest slave-holding families of WASP descent. Where are their white descendants? They haven�t completely disappeared, as a Jackson or Johnson of clearly North European ancestry isn�t unheard of, but they are a minority among their namesakes.
The most common surname in the NBA is Williams, shared by twelve players. Of them, only one is white and he appears to be a blond tattooed freak who�s known for having drug problems. The league also claims three Wallaces, seven Johnsons, four Joneses, and three Youngs, all of whom are black. Obviously the NBA isn�t a representative sample of the population but from my experience I would bet the results would be around the same if one looked at the country as a whole, with a 7- or 8-1 or higher ratio of per capita old wealthy white names among American blacks compared to whites.''
I've thought the same thing. When was the last time you heard of someone surnamed Washington or Jefferson who was not black? Many other names, like those mentioned in the quote, are also primarily associated with blacks nowadays. I suppose that simply indicates that blacks have been much more prolific at reproducing than the descendants of the original bearers of those surnames.
My family surname is one that nowadays is borne by more blacks than whites, especially where I now reside. When I am in certain Southern states, notably Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, and the Carolinas, the ratio tilts more towards the White bearers of the name. Still it's somewhat unfortunate to open up a newspaper or turn on the news and see one's own surname associated with criminal activities. I wonder what my ancestors would think about that?
I know exactly what the liberal type thinks about it: first of all, it's ''racist'' to even notice that black criminals share my surname or my ancestors' surnames, much less, feel discomfort about it. And the liberal would likewise say it's my ''karma,'' because of my ancestors' evil ways. that our name has to be shamed by association with crime -- after all, weren't those old Virginia families (Randolph, Jefferson, Bland, et al) ''criminals'' too by virtue of having held slaves?
Actually though it is not just criminals who share those surnames, but also a few black celebrities and household names have the surnames of some of my ancestors, to such an extent in certain cases that the name is forever associated with those bearers of the family name.
One more factor that the blogger did not mention, but which I've noticed, is that some names which originated in the British Isles are now associated with immigrant Jewish families, by virtue of their having adopted those names when they arrived. This misleads some people into thinking the names are in fact Jewish -- names like Ross, Irving, Robinson, Stone, Lee, and many others.
The cliche has it that immigrants who changed their names were often forced by some heartless immigration official to change their foreign-sounding names to something Anglo-Saxon. I think that story is rather over-used. It appears that many immigrants chose an Anglo-sounding surname so as to better blend in, at least on paper. But rarely do the descendants of those ''forced'' to adopt an English surname ever change it back to the original old-country name. Why not? Ethnic names have become quite trendy now. Why not discard the English or Scottish name and take back the original?
Back during the Civil Rights revolution, militant blacks, usually black Moslems, adopted names that were faux-Arabic or real Arabic names, or adopted names like 'X' because their original African names had been lost, or ''stolen'' from them.
I think that is a move in the right direction; I would not want to retain a name which belongs to an utterly different ancestry or race, especially if I thought the original owners of the name were evil racists who oppressed my ancestors. I am all for the casting off of 'slave names' or imposed English surnames.
A name should tell us something about the ancestry of the person bearing it -- as should a first name, for that matter -- in my opinion. We live in a Babelesque society in which even our names have become confused and muddled, and which obfuscate our origins and our ties of kinship. But maybe that is all part of the overall plan. Names are divisive, aren't they? Just as nationality, race, and religion are divisive, and we can't have that.
Labels: Ancestry, Genealogy, Names, Surnames