Open Thread: Ballot Question 1

The floor (aka the comments section) is open, for people who’d like to discuss why they will or will not be voting for or against the first question that will appear on the Nov. 2 Rhode Island ballot…

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE (CHANGING THE OFFICIAL NAME OF THE STATE)
Approval of the amendment to the Title, Preamble and Section 3 of Article III of the Rhode Island Constitution set forth below will have the effect of changing the official name of the State from “State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations” to “State of Rhode Island”
Voting yes will change the name of the state. Voting no will keep it as is.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
20 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
leprechaun
leprechaun
10 years ago

I’ll be voting NO on Question One. I’ll agree to the change of our history when The NAACP agrees to remove or replace the word ” Colored “, historically considered offensive to African Americans, from their name. What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander. This subject is the EPITOME of Political Correctness.

Warrington Faust
Warrington Faust
10 years ago

I won’t vote for it, it is just silly. If the word “plantations” is offensive to some, that is only because of a limited facility with the English language. I am reminded of the news commentator fired for using “niggardly”.

michael
10 years ago

No, because it is ridiculous.

Aldo
Aldo
10 years ago

Not just NO, but Hell NO!!!
What a waste of time…
That the GA “Leadership” allowed this to go forward and the GA even voted to put this on the ballot is proof that they need to be replaced.

joe bernstein
joe bernstein
10 years ago

NO f**kin’ way!!This is politically correct crap.
I’m sure Phil,sammy,and OTL wil be voting yes.Actually,sammy lives in Arizona,so that would be two out of three.

Chris Reilly
Chris Reilly
10 years ago

I will be voting against this ridiculous proposal. It represents the absolute worst of the politically correct cleansing of our society. It is sad that the government would pandering to s segment of society too stupid to realize that the word plantations has nothing to do with slavery in this context.
It is embarrassing that people this ignorant of history and the English language have a significant enough representation to even bring this joke before the voters. Hopefully the proposal is defeated and the politicians who advanced it are swiftly turned out of office.

David P
David P
10 years ago

Since Rhode Island’s strongest tie with slavery was the slave trade coming through Newport’s docks, perhaps the appropriate response is to remove Rhode Island from the state’s name and leave Providence Plantations intact.

Ken
Ken
10 years ago

If I were still living in State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations I would be voting “NO” keep the original name the same. As a matter of fact I moved into a “Plantation” in Hawaii. There are still active plantations in Hawaii.
Nobody in Hawaii has a problem with the word “Plantations”!
None of these politically correct name changers have talked about the cost of the state name change and the fact you can’t just sweep history under the table. It would be nice if some people stopped fighting the civil war and continually re-energizing racial divide.

EMT
EMT
10 years ago

It is embarrassing that people this ignorant of history and the English language have a significant enough representation to even bring this joke before the voters.
Don’t look now, but you just described most of the General Assembly.

Sammy
Sammy
10 years ago

Yes
Change the name, the “Island” part is stupid
IT’S NOT AND ISLAND ! !

David P
David P
10 years ago

Rhode Island IS an island. Rhode Island is the official name for Aquidneck Island. The reason the state has its unusually long name is that it is actually a union of two colonies – Rhode Island (i.e. Aquidneck Island) and Providence Plantations (the “mainland” portion of the state).

mangeek
mangeek
10 years ago

No. Absolutely not. I would suggest that anyone offended by the word ‘Plantations’ hit the books on our history. We’re basically (mostly, sort of) the good guys.

Phil
Phil
10 years ago

This is so typical of the so called conservatives that comment here to care more about preserving an official name than preserving waterfront land for all of us to enjoy.

David P
David P
10 years ago

By all means lets preserve waterfront property with all that free money floating around Smith Hill.

joe bernstein
joe bernstein
10 years ago

Phil-this post was about the name change,so now conservatives are uncaring scrooges because we stayed on topic unlike you?Whew!!
You’re too much pal.

G-Man
G-Man
10 years ago

Hey Phil, the cost of acquiring taxable land: $14,000,000 plus lost property tax revenue. The cost of keep the states name intact, 0. You do the math.

Pat
Pat
10 years ago

Definitely NO! We have few enough distinctions for our state. Let’s keep our smallest state with the largest name. 😉
Seriously though, they tell us this will cost nothing, but think of all the things that have our state’s ‘official’ name on it and every one of those things would have to be purchased again; letterhead, paperwork, all kinds of stationary, seals, logos, etc. It’s just another way for them to slip through new everything while telling us it didn’t cost us a dime. Stop spending money on unneeded items right now. Revisit this in a few years when the economy turns around.

BobN
BobN
10 years ago

Just because Sammy lives in Arizona doesn’t mean he didn’t arrange for some illegal alien to vote for him here.

don roach
don roach
10 years ago

I’m torn on this one. As a black man, the first commenter’s quote on “colored” historically being an offensive term to black people is just wrong. Colored didn’t become politically incorrect until sometime in the 70s…1970s that is. Black people called themselves negroes for a long time.
And if colored was so offensive why would black people associate with the NAACP?????
I’m very conservative when it comes to issues like renaming because I’m generally not a revisionist. If in our history we enslaved people, well that’s what we did. We shouldn’t try to cover it or put it in some closet. I hate political correctness more than just about anything out there.
At the same time, if I made a choice in a vacuum to vote for the name of the state I’d vote “Rhode Island”. Sigh…not sure on this one…

don roach
don roach
10 years ago

I’m torn on this one. As a black man, the first commenter’s quote on “colored” historically being an offensive term to black people is just wrong. Colored didn’t become politically incorrect until sometime in the 70s…1970s that is. Black people called themselves negroes for a long time.
And if colored was so offensive why would black people associate with the NAACP?????
I’m very conservative when it comes to issues like renaming because I’m generally not a revisionist. If in our history we enslaved people, well that’s what we did. We shouldn’t try to cover it or put it in some closet. I hate political correctness more than just about anything out there.
At the same time, if I made a choice in a vacuum to vote for the name of the state I’d vote “Rhode Island”. Sigh…not sure on this one…

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.