Sen. Harold M. Metts remembers when he had plans to visit the Grand Canyon in Arizona, almost 20 years ago.
It was around that same time – back in 1990 – that voters in Arizona rejected an effort to establish a state holiday honoring the late civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
Metts, who is black, felt compelled to take action.
“I didn’t go,” he recalled last week. “[Arizona’s decision on the MLK holiday] showed a lack of sensitivity, and I just didn’t want to go to that state.” Others around the country felt the same way. And with Arizona’s image suffering and its ability to draw tourists and conventions – and even the Super Bowl – diminished, voters were persuaded to approve the holiday two years later.
Metts, D-Providence, says he could see the same thing happening in Rhode Island, if voters reject the chance next year to shorten the state’s official name – the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations – dropping the “Providence Plantations,” which for many has become a controversial reference to slavery.
With all the national news coverage such a decision would receive, Metts said he wouldn’t be surprised if the state attracted fewer conventions and fewer tourists.
While supporters of the name change, such as Metts, say the use of “plantations” in the state name is offensive, since the word has been linked with slavery, opponents say it would be a needless revision of state history, since “Providence Plantations” referred to farms in Colonial Rhode Island that didn’t necessarily have slaves.
Nevertheless, both the House and Senate approved separate measures by wide margins that would put the matter before voters in November 2010. Both chambers still must adopt the same bill to authorize the statewide referendum.
Metts’ predictions of image problems for the state could be seen as an opening salvo in what is sure to be a hard-fought 1 1/2-year effort to persuade residents here that the name change is needed.
Last week, a coalition of minority groups said it planned an informational campaign ahead of the potential 2010 referendum vote that will feature door-to-door canvassing, forums, editorials and some advertising.
David Carlin III, vice president of government affairs for the Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce and a lobbyist for the Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce Coalition, said his member groups had taken no stand on the issue. He did acknowledge, however, “water cooler” talk questioning the necessity of making a change when the state is dealing with more pressing issues such as gaping deficits.
Carlin also didn’t see that the issue would help or deter economic development in the state.
No matter the outcome in the election booth, however, longtime advocates for the name change were pleased – and surprised – the effort has gotten this far.
Rep. Joseph S. Almeida, D-Providence, who is black, said he had failed for 12 years to get similar legislation through the House, but he decided to use a different tactic this year.
“Instead of working inside the House,” he said, “I worked on the outside, with the community.”
Namely, Almeida worked with the Univocal Legislative Minority Advisory Coalition (ULMAC), a collection of about 40 local minority groups that had pushed for changes to other laws, too. Last year, ULMAC had sought to have the definition of a minority-owned business changed to exclude people with Portuguese descent from preferential treatment in the awarding of government contracts. The bill failed to get out of committee, although Almeida said the measure was submitted again this year and is awaiting a committee vote.
ULMAC has sponsored a campaign called “We Are Not A Plantation,” which includes a Web site and blog on the matter.
Before the House vote on the referendum bill, many lawmakers said they didn’t support changing the state’s name, but felt it should be put before the voters.
Gov. Donald L. Carcieri said through a spokesperson last week that he is against lopping off “Providence Plantations” from the state’s official name because its origins date back to before the region’s involvement in the slave trade.
But Carcieri spokeswoman Amy Kempe acknowledged that the governor did not have authority to veto the initiative.
Metts, too, felt strongly about the name, sponsoring the Senate version of the referendum in recent years.
“If people knew how much this meant to the minority community, it wouldn’t have taken this long to get this far,” Metts said.
The reference to Providence Plantation actually dates back to the founding of Rhode Island by Roger Williams when he settled in the area that is now Providence – after his banishment from the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
He called the settlement Providence Plantations in reference to the large amounts of acreage available for farming, according to Scott Molloy, history professor at the University of Rhode Island.
Molloy said he could understand the minority community’s desire to remove the word “plantations” from the state’s name, particularly when considering Rhode Island was the “most notorious state in New England for the slave trade” in the 1700s.
But he added that “plantation” did not have its more contemporary connotation to slavery in the 1600s, when there were few if any slaves in Rhode Island. “It was a common usage in the British Empire,” he said.
“Some things ought to be righted, but this one doesn’t deserve it,” Molloy said.
Still, Almeida, Metts and ULMAC are pressing forward.
With the state attempting to overcome sizable fiscal troubles, the two lawmakers insisted that the cost of changing the state’s official name would be minimal. If the change is approved, official papers with the longer name would be allowed to run out before office supplies with the shortened name would be ordered.
As for more permanent features such as the seal on the Statehouse floor, those would remain untouched, Metts said.
“It’s part of the state’s history,” he said. “I just want to make sure we don’t condone it.” •
I found this article interesting for two reasons. I do agree that RI’s official name is outdated, and I do see how it can be a liability in its relation to the slave era. However, I also have to admit that I am surprised that most people even know RI’s full name. I can not count how many times I have traveled or have been on the phone talking to a technician for help for one thing or another, and have been asked, “…and in what state is Rhode Island?”. Even those who do know Rhode Island is a state, many assume that, because it lies in the north, that it had very little slave activity. I am often dismayed at how uneducated Americans have become, when they can’t even recall the major players in their own country’s origins.
Regardless of whether or not the name of our state needs to be changed, this is not the time to do it. It is no secret that we are not in a great place financially. Perhaps some people do not realize all of money that will need to be spent on little things like designing a new logo, creating new letterhead, etc. It seems like small change, but it certainly adds up to an amount that would be better spent on alleviating the burden on taxpayers in our state.
It is frightening how ignorant Rep. Metts and likely others in the General Assembly are regarding RI’s history as to its name origin and slavery.
The essential name was adopted in 1644 — that’s right 1644!
There were no slaves in RI as such until later in 17th century.
In 1774, Stephen Hopkins introduced a bill that prohibited the importation of slaves into the colony. This became one of the first anti-slavery laws in the new United States.
In February 1784, Rhode Island passed a law ending slavery within its borders.
And finally, Moses Brown, a Quaker, was an active abolisihonist in the mid 1800s.
All verifiable starting with Wikipedia – History of Rhode Island.
So, “Providence Plantations” has nothing, nada, neit to do with slavery and this whole effort should die as quickly as possible a quiet death.
I support the name change. For 36 years I served as a public servant and traveled throughout the US. We were known as State of Rhode Island.
Simply, the people of today are mindful of history but concerned about the present and future. The legislative process is mandated to correct, better, or in the words of the US Constitution, “to form a more perfect union.” The change sought here is to do all these things.
Any words that are potentially harmful or hurtful, or bear any connotation, particularly official in scope and nature, should be eliminated in the interest of peace, unity, and symbolic in keeping with the values of the United State of America. Divisive ways are destructive and counterproductive to the policies and practices of unification.
Years ago, RI changed the law for women to mandate that all official public documents be written in gender neutral language, reflective of the population that we are and serve. Otherwise, the public documents reflected male dominance. The legislature prospectively mandated that all public documents be written in gender neutral language. Some twenty years later, society is better for it.
Likewise, the legislature changed the law to change the word handicapped to people with disabilities from law and legal and administrative public policies. Today, society is better off for that. Rhode Islanders seek to do the same for people of color, who find the official name of the State offensive. given the history of slavery, ownership… By changing the law to make State’s official name the one that is used both in word and practice, we make history. The people still struggle for equality and unity; this symbolic act is expected to do the same for people of color that the other changes aforementioned did for women and people with disabilities. We all take pride in Rhode Island, but not in its prejudice.
I, for one, unequivocally support the official name change. I believe that we should say what we mean and mean what we say. Then, over time, we shall overcome systemic barriers and foster unity in purpose and common ground.
Beverly Dwyer, Chair of the Board
National Diversity Foundation
2010 YEAR OF CHANGE – History in the Making
In reading the comments, I wish to correct the record on one concern. With enactment of a State name change, actions would be prospective, just as it was for changing the language for gender neutral language and changing the verbiage of handicapped to people with disabilities. Phasing out supplies is a common practice, thereby, incurring no expense. In making history and in keeping with the sensitivity of the rich diversity that RI’s population has, I am confident that our leadership and its citizenry will act in good faith in executing a change and will nurture public confidence in its government.
Further, for those history buffs who dispute slavery implications, I say it is better to act now in the interest of all people in RI. History today (Census) shows that minorities make up one fourth of RI population and with the new census, I am sure we will see growth beyond 2000 projections – 50% by 2050. Demographics are changing and there is a compelling mandate for officials and its people to act in the best interests of its people. To respond to the call for a “quiet death of name change,” I call for a resounding death to prejudice, subtle or overt.
Beverly Dwyer
Gordon said it perfectly. This is politically correct hogwash.
The article is interesting, and I commend those who are willing to stand up for things they believe in.
(I wouldn’t use Wiki as authority for ANYTHING!!!)
I also think the name should stay just the way it is, and has been for 455 years. My parents gave me a name when I was born, and I know I can change that name if I don’tlike it. Changing the name doesn’t mean, though, that I can change the past. And honestly, if I changed my name it would be disrespectful and a genuine dishonor to my parents who gave me my name when I was born.