When I was a kid, I was shocked when things were renamed.
When the Soviets renamed cities as Stalingrad and Leningrad, or the Vietnamese used the name Ho Chi Minh City, I found it jarring. I couldn't understand what would drive renaming — the need for historical reinvention, perhaps, or a desire to reinforce a new iconography. It seemed inorganic somehow.
I had the same issue with banks. My local Barnett Bank was absorbed by Wachovia, which in turn was absorbed by Wells Fargo. Not that the localist permutation was necessarily better than the behemoth that re-contextualized it, but it seemed more authentic somehow when it was a smaller entity.
The local always is absorbed by the global in the sense of corporate identity. Any hipster startup worth its salt has an eye on the exit strategy: when to cash out, how much to cash out for and, maybe, who to cash out for. Critics carped and caviled when the nihilist website Vice was bought out by Fox. Really, is there much difference between the two?
We are marks for branding, us 21st-century Americans, especially when it comes to our diversions. We want our food stamped "organic," our music from an "indie" imprint, our quasi-subversive literature from a small press. And this extends to our public buildings — we expect them, paradoxically, to exude a sense of purpose. As if it matters if the place where we see a concert or an ice hockey game or whatever is named after anyone important, and memorial or tribute to any concept.
Some are struggling with recent talk from Alan Verlander, Jacksonville's sports and entertainment executive director, of amending the name of Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena. He said the idea came up during negotiations between the city and the Jacksonville Jaguars about the EverBank scoreboards. Mayor Alvin Brown said he has no plans to change the name of the arena, said David DeCamp, the mayor's spokesman.
In response to talk of adding a corporate name in 2002, the … More